The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the court's role in revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest illegality or a gross miscarriage of justice.

Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Pursuant to order of date passed on Restoration Application, the revision is restored to its original number.

2. As requested by learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, I proceed to hear the matter and decide afresh.

3. It is stated that revisionist 1 has died in 2015 and therefore this revision has abated, so far as revisionist 1 is concerned. This Court therefore proceed to consider this revision only with respect to revisionist 2.

4. This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. has arisen from the order dated 05.03.1998 passed by the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Criminal Case no. 1947-A/94 convicting revisionists under Section 120-B, 198 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 120-B, 500 I.P.C. and six months simple imprisonment under Section 198 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 500/-. Thereagainst revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal no. 5 of 1993 which has been dismissed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Saharanpur vide order dated 25.04.2001. Against both the aforesaid orders revisionists have preferred the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and, therefore, conviction is illegal. He tried to take this Court to the judgments and made his endeavor to show that the view taken by courts below in appreciating the evidence is not correct.

6. However, I find difficult to accept the above submission for the reason that in revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence.

7. The judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the orders of subordinate courts but should not be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional court in a Court of Appeal. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be maintained.

8. Construing old Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been appealed against by the Government under Section 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of law or misappreciated the evidence on record.

9. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 it was held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. However, this was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power and not otherwise.

10. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707 ; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272 ; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580 ; Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(