ORDER

1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of Cr.PC. has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.1.2016 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria in Criminal Appeal No.62/2009 (Shiv Shankar and others v. State of MP), whereby judgment dated 28.11.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 266/1999 convicting the petitioners for commission of offence under section 498-A/34 of IPC has been affirmed but sentence of 2 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation has been modified & petitioners have been sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court & fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are that complainant Pratibha Dubey lodged a written report against the petitioners with respect to demand of dowry and harassment and on the basis of written report lodged by complainant, FIR under section 498- A/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners and co-accused persons and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against petitioners and co-accused persons under section 498-A/34.

3. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28.11.20007 passed in Criminal Case No. 266/1999 (State of MP v. Shivshankar and others), after evaluation of evidence, found petitioners to have committed offence under section 498-A/34 of IPC and sentenced them as above. Against the above judgment, petitioners filed an appeal and learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 21.1.2016 passed in Cr.A. No. 62/2009, dismissed the appeal of petitioners and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment with respect to conviction but modified the sentence as above. Against this, petitioners have preferred present revision.

4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC:-

5. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of court u/s 397 & 401 of CrPC. In this connection, I would like to refer decisions of Hon’ble apex Court in State v. R. Soundirarasu , AIR 2022 SC 4218, State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 (3-Judge Bench).

6. In Duli Chand (supra),Hon’ble apex court has held as under:-

“5………The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. …..”

7. In R. Soundirarasu (supra), Hon’ble apex court has held as under:-

“75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held as under:-

"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."

76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if