- (1.)THE respondent was tried by the learned Sub Registrar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu, for an offence under section 325 R. P. C. The learned trial Court finding that the evidence led by the prosecution in the case suffered from material contradictions and that there were other doubtful circumstances, acquitted the accused of the charge levelled against him. Gauri Shankar, who is the injured witness and the complainant in the case has filed this revision petition against the acquittal of the respondent.
(2.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complainant has suffered injuries in the course of incident which took place on 15 -8 -1972 at about 6 P. M. when the petitioner was going towards the market and the accused asked him to stop the smoke coming from his house through a hole in the wall. On the refusal of the complainant, the respondent caught hold of him and administered 2/3 slaps on hit face and also kicked him. The learned counsel has further argued that Bharat Bhushan and Hem Raj P was have been wrongly disbelieved by the learned trial Court. It was further argued that the doubt created by the over writing of the date on the Farm Majrubi" given by the Doctor could not be used against the prosecution and the Court should have ascertained the actual date from the original record which must have been available in the Hospital. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the grounds for disbelieving Bhart Bhushan and Hem Raj and considering the case as doubtful due to over writing on "Farm Majrubi" were not sufficient to warrant the finding of acquittal of the respondent. I am afraid, I can not agree with these submissions The reasons given by the learned trial Court are not irrelevant for disbelieving the prosecution story. Because of the acquittal of the respondent the presumption of innocence in his favour stands augumented. Such a finding can not be interfered within a revision. A complainant can invoke the revisional powers of the High Court under section 439 Cr. P. C. and file a revision petition, but it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred under section 439 Cr. P. C. should not be exercised lightly when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been appealed against by the Government under section 417 Cr. P. C. The powers could be exercised only in exceptional cases when as observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in 1951 S. C. R 284. "The Interest of public justice require interference for the correction of manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.
(3.)IT follows that the Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 439 Cr P. C can not be invoked merely because the trial Court had misappreciated the evidence on the record. The High Court can not reappraise the evidence and reverse the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court.
After giving my careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case. I am afraid, no good ground has been made out for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub -Registered Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu dated 4 -2 -1975. The order under revision does not suffer from any manifest illegality nor has the order resulted in any gross miscarriage of Justice justifying interference. This revision petition is without, any merit and is accordingly dismissed.