Aditya Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 23.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Etawahin Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2009, Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. and Another, by which the judgment and order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 24.3.2009 has been upheld and the conviction has been maintained. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. but the Court below has not considered this aspect. The ill -fated bus was coming from Farrukhabad and Scooter was also coming from Farrukhabad. Due to break of mudguard of the Scooter the accident has taken place for which the revisionist was not responsible. It has also been submitted that the revisionist has now since retired, therefore, a lenient view maybe taken because the incident took place about 17 years ago i.e. on 3.5.1996.
(2.) LEARNED A.G.A. has defended the impugned order. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also other materials on record. It is settled position of law that High Court will exercise its revisional power where there is a material error or defect in law or procedure, misconception or misreading of evidence, failure to exercise or wrong exercise of jurisdiction or where the facts admitted or proved do not disclose any offence. As a broad proposition, the interference may be justified, (a) where the decision is grossly erroneous; (b) where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; (c) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on the evidence; (d) where the material evidence of the parties has not been considered; and (e) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
(3.) IN exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to re -assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, : II (1999) SLT 83 : 1 (1999) CCR 92 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 981, has held that the High Court while hearing revisions does not work as a Appellate Court and will not re -appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done.;