P.D. Rajan, J.

1. The revisional power conferred under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the High Court is a special jurisdiction to correct the miscarriage of justice arising from the erroneous orders, which may arise from the misconception of law, irregularity of procedure or order and misreading of evidence. This revisional power is discretionary one and one cannot claim it as a vested right, when there is vested right in an appeal. The appellant has a statutory right in an appeal to demand adjudication upon a question of law or question of fact or of both. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner has no such right, but he has the right to bring the case to the notice of the court and it is for the court to interfere in exceptional cases when it feels that substantial injustice has been done.

2. The revision petitioners were charge sheeted in C.C.485 of 2002 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady for having committed offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 353, 506(i) r/w with 149 IPC. The charge is that on 4.9.2002 at 6.30 pm, accused 1 to 4 and five others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, they prevented the Advocate Commissioner appointed in O.S.98 of 2002 of the Munsiff Court, Mananthavady from inspecting the property and threatened him, the second accused snatched the letter pad and the court order and ran away, thereby committed the offence.

3. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to 6 and marked Ext.P1 to P5. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioners guilty under Section 143, 147, 353, 506(i) read with 149 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 143 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 147 IPC, to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 353 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 506(i) IPC. Against that, they preferred Criminal appeal No.90 of 2004 in the Additional Sessions Court, Kalpetta (Adhoc II) in which it was observed that A3 committed an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and also observed that offence under Section 147 IPC will not lie against him. The appellate court also reduced the punishment imposed under Section 143 IPC to simple imprisonment for one month and reduced sentence under Section 506(i) IPC to simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence on the second accused was also reduced to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 353 IPC with a default clause of simple imprisonment for one month and again observed that A1, A2 and A3 were acquitted under Section 353 IPC. Being aggrieved by that judgment, accused preferred this revision petition.

4. I have heard both sides and perused the oral and documentary evidence. A close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that both courts below did not consider the relevant evidence and made a wrong appreciation in this case. Both courts created an impression that there was an unlawful assembly for committing the aforesaid offence but the members of the unlawful assembly were not identified by the witnesses. This shows that many things which were found in the evidence are wrongly appreciated and several factors which would have favoured the accused were omitted by both the courts. When there is misreading of evidence, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised in such cases.

5. PW1 to PW4 are the occurrence witnesses of which PW1 is the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Munsiff Court, Mananthavady. According to PW1, he arrived at the petition schedule property on 4.9.2002 at 5 pm and he was inspecting the property. A1 to A4 and six others came there and stated that plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Hanuman temple and if it is inspected, the consequence will be dangerous and they told him that he cannot inspect the property