The revisional court cannot substitute its own conclusions based on evidence and must only review legality and propriety of prior findings.

O R D E R

The revision petitioners are the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 36 of

2017 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri.

2. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioners in C.C. No.1222 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. As per the judgment of the trial court, the accused/revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 392 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

3. The prosecution case is that the revision petitioners snatched the gold chain of the de facto complainant on 08.04.2008, while the de facto complainant was walking through Koottilangadi-Paramammal road.

4. Heard Sri. Amina Akthar, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. P. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. Even though the learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that there are serious illegalities in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court, no specific illegality or irregularity is pointed out.

6. PW1 is the de facto complainant and her evidence shows that the incident occurred on 08.04.2008 at 6.45 p.m. while she was walking through the road. According to PW1, the accused persons came riding a motor bike and snatched her gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns. According to PW1, the second accused was riding the bike and the first accused was the pillion rider who snatched the gold chain.

7. PW2 is another occurrence witness and she also deposed regarding the occurrence fully corroborating the evidence of PW1. PWs 1 and 2 identified the accused persons and MO1 gold chain before the court and there is no challenge regarding the dock identification of accused persons and the identity of MO1 gold chain recovered by PW8, Circle Inspector on the basis of Exhibit P10, disclosure statement of the first accused. PW3 is the husband of PW1 and he also identified MO1 gold chain before the court.

8. It is well settled that the revisional power is not the same as the appellate jurisdiction and the revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, unless there are glaring indications of a grave injustice or blatant violation of law, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452] .

9 . It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revisional court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case and the revisional court considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings and the revisional court cannot substitute its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another [(2012) 9 SCC 460] and Kishan Rao v. Shankargauda [(2018) 8 SCC 165] .

10. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity which necessitates the interference of this Court in revision.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

sd/-