The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction and can only be exercised in cases of clear legal errors or miscarriages of justice.

J U D G M E N T

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, by the 1^st accused in Crime No.255 of 2001 of Taliparamba Police Station, who suffered conviction for the offences under Sections 457, 380, and 461 of IPC, as per the judgment dated 10.07.2008 in C.C.No.499 of 2002, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five months for each of the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 461 of IPC, which was confirmed in appeal as per the judgment dated 28.06.2012 in Crl.A. No.332 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thalassery.

2. As per the prosecution case, the accused 2 in numbers, on 05.06.2001 at about 1.00 a.m., committed lurking house trespass by making a hole in the wall of a Jewellery Shop near Taliparamba bus stand in Taliparamba Amsom and committed theft of silver ornaments, a weighing machine and imitation stones kept in the shelf, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the accused committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Before the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts. P1 to P5 documents, and MOs. 1 to 4 material objects were marked. When examined under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence. However, no defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused.

4. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. The judgment of conviction and sentence was confirmed in the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is now before this Court with this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that as per the deposition of PW1, the owner of the jewellery shop, the silver ornaments that were stolen from the shop bear a mark ‘SJT’. But Mos. 1 to 3 series ornaments recovered as per the confession statement of the accused do not contain this mark.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only a few ornaments recovered do not contain this mark. But, the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution conclusively proved the guilt of the petitioner/accused No.1. Therefore, by exercising revisional jurisdiction, no interference is needed to the impugned judgments.

7. It is trite that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with orders or judgments of the courts below only if those orders and judgments are suffering from incorrectness, illegality or impropriety. Unless the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate or by the Appellate Court is perverse or the view taken by the Court is unreasonable, or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional Court is not justified in interfering with the judgment. The revisional Court cannot act like an Appellate Court.

8. In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri [ AIR 1999 SC 981 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

"In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revision