The revisional court's authority does not extend to reevaluating evidence but ensuring correctness and legality of lower court judgments.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the concurrent finding in C.C.No.808/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy whereby accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for offences punishable under Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1965 and the accused No.2 was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code . The revision petitioners are the accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 31.05.2009, at about 7.45 p.m., at Kodali Lakshamveedu Colony in Mattathur Panchayat, during the course of a meeting convened by Mattathur Grama Panchayat authorities to discuss the renovation of Lakshamveedu Colony, both the accused showered abuses against PW1, the Grama Panchayat Member and in the meantime, the 2^nd accused hit on the back side of the head of PW1 using his hands. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1965 and Section 323 of the IPC .

3. After trial, the learned Magistrate found both accused guilty under section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1965 . Furthermore, the 2^nd accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC . Aggrieved by the same, both the accused preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the finding against both the accused. However, the sentence imposed on the 2^nd accused for the offence punishable under section 323 of the is modified to simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under challenge in this revision petition.

4. Heard Sri. K. K. Dheerendra Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Smt. Maya M. N., learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused are illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence brought on record. It was urged that both the trial court and the appellate court placed undue reliance on the evidence of PW1, without taking note of the fact that PW1 bore animosity toward the accused for the last several years, due to political reasons, and therefore, there is every chance of false implication. According to the learned counsel, the trial court as well as the appellate court ought to have found that this case is a foisted one at the influence of some local political leaders to wreak vengeance out of political rivalry. The learned counsel further submitted that the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution are partisan witnesses who belong to the same political party of PW1, and in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of those witnesses and to enter into a conviction.

6. Per contra, the learned public prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment to invoke the revisional power of this Court. According to the learned public prosecutor, it was mainly based on the evidence of PW1, the injured witness, that the trial court as well as the appellate court entered into a finding of guilt against the accused. It was further submitted that the evidence of PW1 finds sufficient corroboration from the independent evidence of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, as well as by medical evidence, and hence, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

7. It is trite that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with