ORDER

This Criminal Revision is directed against the concurrent Judgments of conviction passed in C.A.No.32 of 2015 dated 10.01.2017 on the file of the Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai and the Judgment made in C.C.No.97 of 2012, dated 26.05.2015 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

2. The revision petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.

97 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai. The respondent police, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Jeyamuniyandi, registered a case in Crime No. 4 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) IPC. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police has laid a final report against the three accused under Sections 420 and 506(ii) IPC and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 97 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai.

3. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and exhibited 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The accused have adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the Judgment on 26.05.2015 acquitting the first accused for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and the third accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC and convicting the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 2 years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction, the accused 1 and 2 have preferred an appeal in C.A.No.32 of 2015 and the learned Sessions Judge of Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai, upon considering the materials on record and arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned Judgment on 10.01.2017 dismissing the appeal and thereby, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Criminal appeal, the accused 1 and 2 have come forward with the present revision.

5. Whether the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai in C.A.No.32 of 2015 dated 10.01.2017 confirming the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai in C.C.No. 97 of 2012, dated 26.05.2015 is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration.

6. Before entering into the further discussion, it is time to remind myself about the restricted or limited jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., The revision jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction for correcting miscarriage of justice and the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated as a second Appellate jurisdiction. Generally, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of this Court, which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. It is settled law that when Appellate Court has given its findings after reassessing the entire evidence, this Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and reassess the evidence and substitute its views on finding of facts. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction there is absolutely no scope for re-appreciation of entire evidence once again. But certainly if the appreciation of evidence is tainted with perversity that can be interfered with. It is also settled law that even if an alterative view is possible, this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own view, in lieu of the concurrent views of the courts below.

Bearing the above legal position in mind, let us consider the case on hand.

7.