JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The present revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the ''Code'') is directed against the judgment dated 20.6.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 35B/X2007, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23/24.10.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 14II/2007, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (fort short, "IPC"); and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, "the Act"). However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2006, PW2 Janak Chand, Incharge, HRTC Baijnath, reported to the police that adjoining to the HRTC Bus Stand is the shop of the petitioner, who is running business of confectionery therein. In between the land of HRTC and the said shop, there existed a boundary wall. The said wall was constructed at the time of construction of the Bus Stand itself, however, the petitioner on the intervening night of 24/25.10.2006 with an intention to occupy the land of HRTC got the said boundary wall dismantled by engaging some labourers. He was further found fixing shutter to the shop on the spot.

3. The investigation was carried out and during the course of which, spot map, Ext.PW4/A, was prepared and photographs of the spot, Ext.PW3/A to Ext.PW3/C were taken and thereafter, got developed and negatives of same were exhibited as Ext.PW3/D to Ext. PW3/F. The Regional Manager, HRTC gave a certificate, Ext.PW1/A qua damage caused to the government property.

4. Notice of accusation for the offences punishable under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Act was put to the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses and thereafter, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he claimed false implication, however, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record vide judgment dated 23/24.10.2007 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for commission of the offences as aforementioned.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.6.2008, constraining him to file the instant revision petition.

8. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and, therefore, judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the learned Courts below deserve to be set aside.

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

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

11. 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 withou