The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the mandatory requirement for the trial court to specify reasons for not granting probation, and the applicability of probation under the relevant legal provisions.

Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated passed by the IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1987 dismissing the appeal and modifying the judgment and order dated 25.06.1987 passed by the Ist Additional Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi convicting and sentencing the revisionist to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- under section 323 IPC to the extent that the revisionist were enlarged on probation of good conduct for a period of six months on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1000/- along with a personal bond in the like amount to keep peace and be of a good behaviour.

2. Brief facts of the case are that there was an old enmity between the complainant Mahendra Kumar and accused Manglesh Kumar Dube and Akhilesh Kumar Dube. The complainant and both the accused are resident of Bahadurpur, PS Ram Nagar, district Varanasi. The complainant runs a hotel at Parao at G.T. road. It has been alleged that on 27.04.1983 at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant was passing near Tulsa Dharamkanta near his hotel, suddenly the accused armed with lathi and danda came there and started abusing the complainant. When the complainant asked them not to do, they assaulted him by lathi and danda. Thereafter the complainant lodged an FIR on 10.35 a.m. on the same day at police station Ram Nagar. The complainant was medically examined in lovett Hospital of Ram Nagar at 12.30 p.m. on the same day. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused person.

3. Charges were framed against the revisionist, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined Mahendra Kumar as PW-1, Ashok Kumar Pandey as PW-2, Abdul Aziz as PW-3, Constable Tarkeshwar Ram as PW-4 and B.N. Pandey as PW-5.

5. The accused person denied of having committed the offence in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Magistrate after perusing all the evidence found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 300/- under section 323 IPC. Feeling aggrieved the accused-revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1987. The appellate court after hearing the accused maintained the conviction but modified the sentence from fine of Rs. 300/- to probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred the present revisionist.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

9. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has to examine whether there is any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order under revision.

10. As a broad proposition, the interference of revisional court may be justified in cases (i) where the decision is grossly erroneous (ii) where there is no compliance with the provision of law (iii) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence on record (iv) where the material evidence of parties has not been considered (v) where the court below has misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record (vi) where the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

11. The arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionist are that there is no ground for conviction of the accused revisionist.

12. It has further been argued that a perusal of the evidence shows that the evidence was shaky and conviction could not be based on this evidence.

13. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction the court may not exercise jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and reappraisal of evidence is not permissible within the revisional jurisdiction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 981 in the case of State of Kerela Vs. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri has held that

"the High Court while hearing revision does not work as an appellate court and will not re-appreciate