The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's limited revisionary jurisdiction, the evaluation of evidence, and the application of legal provisions related to the charges.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioner alongwith one Jastej Singh, was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506/34 IPC and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act (for short ''Act'') by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and both the accused were sentenced and convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 506 IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 30 of Indian Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The appeal filed against the said conviction by coaccused Jastej Singh was accepted whereas the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 01.08.2011 and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

3. The case of the prosecution was that on 19.06.2002 at about 10.30.PM, complainant Mukesh Rathore reported to the police vide application Ext.PW1/A that on 19.06.2002, he was on night duty at Govindghat barrier and at about 9.30 PM, one Qualis vehicle came at the barrier, which was followed by one Esteem vehicle bearing No.PB-10AD-6117, the driver thereof was wearing white Kurta and Pyjama and was continuously blowing the horn and was asking to open the barrier. The complainant at that time was busy in issuing slip to Qualis vehicle. The complainant had asked the driver of Esteem vehicle to wait for some time, but the person occupying the rear seat of the vehicle who was none other than the petitioner, brandished a pistol at him by taking out his hand from the window of the vehicle and while doing so, threatened to do away with his life.

The complainant, on this immediately asked Devinder to open the barrier. The incident was witnessed by the Excise Inspector and one Pinka. As soon as the vehicle left the barrier, the Excise Inspector informed the incident to the police and the police official accordingly informed Police Station, Paonta Sahib. The complainant further reported that in case, he would not have opened the barrier, he could have been killed by the petitioner and Jastej Singh. On this, complaint FIR Ext.PW16/F came to be registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib. Information was also sent to the respective barriers, upon which, the said vehicle was intercepted at Behral barrier. During inspection of the vehicle, a box containing 32 live cartridges was recovered. The petitioner produced a pistol Ex.P1, which was carrying 4 live cartridges. The vehicle on being produced by Jastej Singh was taken into possession. The owner of the vehicle during investigation produced the documents of the vehicle vide memo Ext.PW6/A. Both the accused were subjected to medical examination vide MLCs Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B. Verification about the pistol carried by the petitioner was got done from the office of D.M. Patiala and the relevant document to that effect was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW10/A.

4. After completion of investigation, challan under Section 506/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Act was put in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P., and as stated above, the petitioner was convicted in the manner as aforesaid.

5. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the material contradictions in the prosecution case and have further failed to notice the various infirmities on which the case had been set up by the prosecution and, therefore, the petitioner like his coaccused Jastej Singh ought to have been acquitted.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, would support the judgments as passed by the learned Courts below by arguing that the petitioner