The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of revisionary jurisdiction and the importance of testimonies in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The present revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ''Code'') are directed against the judgments passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H. P. on 22. 09. 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2005, whereby he dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Anni, District, Kullu, H. P. , on 27. 01. 2005, in Criminal Case No. 4-2 of 2002 and Criminal Case No. 4-A-2 of 2002, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months and a pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months and to a pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and in default of the payment of fine imposed upon him, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the aforesaid offences.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14. 08. 2001, Shri Beli Ram, Inspector Post Office, West Sub Division, Rampur Bushahr addressed application Ex. PA to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Nirmand regarding misappropriation of public money by the petitioner. It was alleged that petitioner while working as Gramin Dak Sewak, Branch Post Master at Branch Post Office, Durah in Nither Sub Post Office, District Kullu had misappropriated Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- of one year term deposit account Nos. 710039 and 710042. It was further alleged that petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 12,500/- from recurring deposit account and Rs. 8000/- of the holder of Indira Vikas Patras No. 60B 352402 to 352409. In this manner, the petitioner had misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 57,500/- and he was absconding since 21. 06. 2001.

3. On the basis of this application, FIR Ex. PB under Section 409 came to be registered on 22. 08. 2001. During investigation, it was found that the accused had misappropriated the aforesaid amounts and on conclusion thereof accused came to be challaned for the offences committed under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Code.

4. The learned trial Court tried the accused for the aforesaid offences and found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo the imprisonment as above.

5. Aggrieved by the judgments, the petitioner preferred the appeals in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, however, the same came to be dismissed, constraining him to file the instant revision petitions.

6. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from all the charges.

7. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General would argue that the judgments rendered by the learned Courts below are based upon the correct appreciation of evidence and passed strictly in accordance with law, therefore, same call for no interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

8. At the outset, it may be observed that the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr. P. C. is extremely limited and this Court would only interfere in case the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by examining the material placed on record with a view to ascertain that the judgments so rendered by the learned Courts below are not perverse and are based on the correct appreciation of evidence on record. This Court would definitely interfere in case it comes to the conclusion that there is a failure of justice and misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure or where the sentence awarded is not cor