The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for exceptional circumstances to interfere with lower court judgments under revisionary jurisdiction, and the emphasis on not lightly exercising revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The petitioners, who were charged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') , by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 120-B IPC, simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 27.12.2011 and aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.

3. The case of the prosecution was that on 06.07.1996, the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Mandi, lodged a complaint that the society known as "Hadimba Hathkarga Udyog Sahkari Sabha, Samiti, Upper Bhamla" was authorized to impart training by the District Industrial Centre and a sum of Rs. 80, 000/- was also sanctioned and same was disbursed in the bank account of H.P. Cooperative Bank, Baldwara. It was also alleged that petitioner No.1 was Secretary and petitioner No.2 was President of the said Society and both the petitioners have withdrawn the amount of Rs. 78, 000/- and thereby committed embezzlement of the amount in question.

4. Upon this, an FIR No. 154/1996, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered with the concerned Police Station. Apart from the petitioners, four other persons of the Society were arrayed as accused.

5. After completion of the investigation, challen was put in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

6. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the material contradictions in the prosecution case and have further ignored the fact that the case had been lodged against the petitioners solely on account of enmity and the entire story had been manipulated.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, would support the judgments as passed by the learned Courts below.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on the record.

8. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and this Court would only interfere in case the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced without 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 correct. After all, it is the salutary duty of this Court to prevent the abuse of justice or miscarriage of justice or/and correct irregularities, incorrectness committed by the inferior Criminal Court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. This Court has very limited revisionary jurisdiction as held by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2011, titled as Rajinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 13.09.2017, wherein the scope of criminal revision has been delineated in the following manner:-

"In Amur Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose and another , (1973) AIR(Supreme Court