ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. THE APPELLANT HEREIN WAS CONVICTED BY THE TRIAL COURT UNDER SECTION 376 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (FOR SHORT "IPC") AND SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS. 7500 IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. ON APPEAL BEING PREFERRED, THE SESSIONS COURT ACQUITTED THE APPELLANT. THEREAFTER THE HIGH COURT SUO MOTU INVOKED THE REVISIONAL POWERS AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL BE NOT SET ASIDE. UPON NOTICE BEING SERVED, THE APPELLANT APPEARED AND THEREUPON THE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION AND HAVING TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE ONE TAKEN BY THE APPELLATE COURT UPON THE REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SESSIONS COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RECORDING ACQUITTAL AND IT REVERSED THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL AND RESTORED THE ORDER OF CONVICTION RENDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY SPECIAL1EAVE.

3. FROM A BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE HIGH COURT UPON REAPPRAISAL CAME TO A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE RECORDED BY THE APPELLATE COURT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN REVISION AGAINST ACQUITTAL BY A PRIVATE PARTY, THE POWERS OF THE REVISIONAL COURT ARE VERY LIMITED. IT CAN INTERFERE ONLY IF THERE IS ANY PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED OR MISREAD BY THE SUBORDINATE COURT. IF UPON REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE, TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE EVEN FOR THE APPELLATE COURT IN APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME, MUCH LESS IN REVISION WHERE THE POWERS ARE MUCH NARROWER. NO PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT WHEREBY THE APPELLANT WAS ACQUITTED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN EXERCISE OF ITS REVISIONAL POWERS, AS SUCH THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH BY THIS COURT.

4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER RENDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IS RESTORED. THE APPELLANT, WHO IS ON BAIL, IS DISCHARGED FROM THE LIABILITY OF BAIL BONDS.