1. The petitioner herein is a victim of unfortunate incident taken place after Godhra incident in the year 2002. The petition is against the judgment of acquittal dated 4.4.2007 passed by Presiding Officer of 5th Fast Track Court, Palanpur in Sessions Case No.108 of 2002. The sessions triable offences were registered at Vadgam Police Station with reference to C.R.No.I-19 of 2002 on 2.3.2002. After investigation of the offence, the investigating agency has filed chargesheet before the concerned Magistrate, which was ultimately, committed to the Sessions Court for the offences punishable u/ss.143, 147, 148, 149, 435, 436, 188, 337 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 131 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. The sum and substance of the argument by the learned advocate for the applicant Mr.Shah was to the effect that this being revision against an order of acquittal the Court may remand the sessions case for retrial so as to convict the accused. Since the sum and substance of argument is for retrial of the sessions case, it has been proceeded further even in absence of respondents No.3 and 4, since they are duly served.

3. In addition to submissions on behalf of petitioner as well as respondents, record and proceedings of the original Sessions Case No.108 of 2002, which is received from the trial Court has been perused by the Court.

4. The story, history and nature as well as sequence of incidents are well defined in the impugned judgment as well as in revision petition and, therefore, this order is not burdened by its repetition, considering the fact that basic request before this Court is to remand the Sessions Case for retrial mainly for re-appreciation of evidence on record.

5. The jurisdiction of the Court in such revision petitions are limited by the statute itself, thereby prima-facie, the Court has to look into the issue regarding irregularity or illegality, if any, committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and whether the impugned judgment has ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice or absolute injustice to the either of the litigant. Therefore, this being the first revision against the order of acquittal, though this Court is empowered to re-appreciate the evidence, to examine that whether appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge has resulted into miscarriage of justice or not, it is settled legal position that such re-appreciation of evidence has to be done with limited jurisdiction and authority so as to verify the irregularity and illegality only and evidence cannot be re-appreciated or dealt with, only because of different opinion of the Appellate Court. Thereby, the Appellate Court has to be careful while re-appreciating the evidence in case of acquittal and decision of acquittal can be interfered only and only if the appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge is absolutely unjust and illegal and without consideration of settled legal position and applicable law. Thereby, only because someone is able to take a different view from the same set of evidence, on such ground alone, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated so as to convert the decision of acquittal into that of conviction of accused. To that extent, the Apex Court has categorically stated that in case of acquittal appeal or revision, the accused have got double benefit in their favour viz. (1) a standard rule of criminal jurisprudence that no-one should be believed as an accused unless there is proper proof and evidence against him and (2) in such cases of acquittal, the judgment of acquittal, which is otherwise confirming either innocence or lack of evidence against such accused. Therefore, respondent before us though they were accused before the trial Court, they are having a clear verdict in their favour by the trial Court that either they are innocent or there is lack of evidence so as to convict them and, therefore, in such cases, the re-appreciation of evidence is to be done with great care and order of acqui