The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under S. 397/401 CrPC is supervisory, limited to correcting illegality or impropriety, and cannot be equated with appellate powers to re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or indicate a gross miscarriage of justice.

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 judgment dated 26.03.2013 in Crl. Appeal No. 427/2011 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, arising out of the judgment dated 18.06.2011 in C.C. No. 321/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - IV, Kozhikode. The revision petitioners herein are the first and second accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.08.2008, at about

12:00 noon, in support of a nation wide strike called on by the left parties, at Karikkamkulam junction in Vengeri amsom, the first and second accused, along with some others, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, they obstructed the vehicles that plied through Malapparamba - Karapparamba public road shouting slogans and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 283 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

3. Upon trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 283 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and convicted them. For the offence punishable under Section 143 of the I.P.C., the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the I.P.C., the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks each. Further, for the offence punishable under Section 283 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C., the accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three days each.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Sessions Judge, upon hearing the appeal, dismissed the same and confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal and the confirmation of the conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offences, the accused have preferred the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri. Hanson P. Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, and Sri U. Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the accused are illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. It was further argued that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to show leniency in the matter of sentencing and that, in the interest of justice, the sentence ought to have been confined to the imposition of a fine alone, without awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8. This is a case in which the accused along with some other identifiable accused have allegedly formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and obstructed a public road as part of a hartal called on by a political party. The learned Magistrate, upon apprecia