The jurisdiction of the High Court is limited in revising acquittal judgments, requiring a substantial error to intervene.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of acquittal of the party respondents in this revision. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in CC No.671/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom. It is a prosecution initiated against the party respondents alleging offences punishable under Sections 465 , 467, 471, 474 and 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 to 3 sharing common intention to deprive the defacto complainant Mohankumar of his share in the petrol pump K.R. Panicker and Sons bearing Bharat Petroleum Corporation No. KL-182, forged a deed whereby defacto complainant herein on 07.08.1984 is seen to have given away his rights over the said pump to the second accused herein. It is also alleged that the signature of the defacto complainant herein was forged without his knowledge and the forged deed has been used as a genuine deed by accused No.1 and 2 for opening account in State Bank of Travancore, Vaikom branch in the name of both of them and the profits from the petrol pump has been appropriated by accused No.1 and 2 without sharing the same with the defacto complainant herein thereby committing offences under section 465, 467, 471, 474, 477 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code .

3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution adduced evidence as PWs 1 to 8. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on his side. Ext.D1 is marked on the side of the defence. After going through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that the accused are not guilty and they were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

4. Aggrieved by the acquittal order, the petitioner who is the defacto complainant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The Additional Sessions Judge-II (Special), Kottayam considered the appeal. The Sessions Judge, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the acquittal order. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that the accused have not committed any offence and they were acquitted. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with concurrent finding of acquittal is very limited. Even then, because of the persuasive argument of the counsel for the petitioner, this Court perused the impugned judgments and the available records. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the acquittal order. The trial court and the appellate court considered the matter in detail. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a revision against the acquittal.