JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is against the judgment dated 25-7-1976 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar whereby the conviction of the petitioners was maintained under section 147 I.P.C. Their conviction under section 427 I.P.C. was converted into one under section 426 I.P.C. and further their conviction under section 440 I.P.C. was set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these: In the month of December 1973, there was a strike in Sadul Textiles Mills. Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the Mill). On 11-12-1973 at about 8 or 9 p.m. about 40 or 50 of the labourers who were on strike pulled down a wall and threwst ones at the loyal employees of the Mill. Thereafter they also set fire to a Kacha garage. About 13 persons were injured as a result of this brick batting or the stone throwing At about midnight Sohan Singh, one of the chowkidars of the Mill lodged the report Ex. P.l. A case was registered under sections 447, 440, 427, 437, 336 I.P.C. and after due investigation a challan was presented against the petitioners only. The names of all the petitioners were stated in the F.I.R. The learned trial court disbelieved the story of setting fire to the garage and in that view acquitted the petitioners of the offence under sections 437 and 336 I.P.C. In appeal the conviction of the petitioners was further modified in the manner stated above. As many as twelve eye witnesses were examinee in the case. Four of the eye witnesses did not identify any of the petitioners during the incident and no reference need be made to their evidence. P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 are the witnesses who identified the petitioner during the incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not seriously challenge that pari of the version of the prosecution in which the story of pulling down the wall and stone throwing is contained. However, it is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution could not lead satisfactory evidence to prove that the petitioners also participated in the stone throwing or were the members of an unlawful assembly. They were falsely implicated because they were admittedly members of the labour union. Various other infirmities were also brought to my notice regarding the facts and circumstances of the case including the impartiality of the prosecution witnesses. They were falsely implicated because they were admittedly members of the labour union. Various other infirmities were also brought to my notice regarding the facts and circumstances of the case including the impartiality of the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that in any event, on case under section 426 I.P.C. is made out because there is no evidence that any of the petitioners pulled down the wall or participated in pulling down it. On the other hand it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is not open in a criminal revision to re-appreciate or re-assess the prosecution evidence. In any case it is proved by good evidence that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly and participated in stone throwing. The fact that the petitioners threw the stones would lead to the conclusion that they were also the members of an unlawful assembly. 3. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record of the case carefully. In the first instance it is argued that there is no evidence that the petitioners actually participated in destructing the wall, that only be the members of an unlawful assembly, but they have not been convicted under section 426/149 I.P.C. I have considered this argument and I feel that it must prevail. There is no evidence whatsoever that the petitioner participated in pulling down the wall. In this view the petitioners are entitled to an acquittal under section 426 I.P.C. 4. Beforedealing with the evidence lead in the case, it may be stated that the scope of revision in a criminal case is severely limited It was thus observed in Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1975 S.C. page 1960) :- "The jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision applies ion is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence." In view of these observations I am not inclined to re-assess the evidence except on the point whether the petitioners participated in stone throwing. Before that I may briefly mention the arguments advances by the learned counsel for the petitioners showing various infirmities in the prosecution evidence. It is pointed out that the story of setting fire to the garage was disbelieved. The FIR was not promptly lodged. The witnesses are not impartial. Before that I may briefly mention the arguments advances by the learned counsel for the petitioners showing various infirmities in the prosecution evidence. It is pointed out that the story of setting fire to the garage was disbelieved. The FIR was not promptly lodged. The witnesses are not impartial. Why Sohan Singh was chosen to make the F.I.R. when some of the officers of the Mill were available for this purpose. It is further submitted that the witnesses were not promptly examined during the course of investigation. It was also submitted that only persons from Phagwara mills were injured and this would mean that the employees of the Mill who had been examined at the trial were not present at the scene of incident including Sohan Singh and Harish Thaper. I am of the opinion that these arguments relate to the appreciation of evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner could not establish that the evidence was appreciated in violation of the well settled principles of appreciating the evidence in a criminal case. However, it is further strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence worth the name to indicate that the petitioners were also the members of an unlawful assembly. Any overt act could not be proved against them in the sense that there is no evidence to prove that they also participated in the stone throwing. The possibility cannot be ruled out that they were mere spectators. On the other hand it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is ample evidence on the record of the case to prove that the petitioners also participated in stone throwing. I have considered the rival contentions carefully. 5. P.W. 3 Natha Singh is an employee of Phagwara mill. He stated that he came to the Mill on duty from Phagwara on 10-12-1973. The incident took place in the night of 11-12-1973. He stated that he identified 6 or 7 persons including Hukma, Santu, Ramesh and other petitioners. The petitioners and the other members of the assembly started to threw stones. I am of the opinion that it is not possible to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness because he was more or less a stranger to the petitioners and a casual acquaintance of a day before would not enable him to identify the petitioners. The petitioners and the other members of the assembly started to threw stones. I am of the opinion that it is not possible to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness because he was more or less a stranger to the petitioners and a casual acquaintance of a day before would not enable him to identify the petitioners. P.W. 4 Tara Chand, another man from Phagwara mills only deposed against Ramesh and Sri Chand. He further stated that Ramesh and Sri Chand also throw stones. In the cross-examination he stated that he knew these two persons from before. In his police statement he has named all the petitioners and therefore, in view of this contradiction it is difficult to place any reliance upon his testimony. PW 6 Ajit Singh from Phagwara mills appeared to be in the Mill for the last two months before the incident. He has categorically stated that all the petitioners were in the mob and threw stones. PW 8 Sacha Singh though an employee of the Phagwara mill is working in this Mill for the last so many days. He could only name Ramesh and Hukma, PW 1 Sohan Singh stated in the examination-in-chief that the petitioners were throwing the stones. However, in the cross-examination he stated that when the stones were thrown from outside, then he could not see who were throwing the stones. Therefore, from his statement it could not be said that he did not see the petitioners throwing the stones. PW 2 Barisal Singh also stated that the petitioners also threw stones. In his cross examination be stated that from outside the Mill who amongst the 40 persons were throwing the stones, he was enable to see. Again it is not clear from his cross examination whether after the wall was pull down he did not identify the petitioners throwing stones. P.W.5 Harish Thaper also stated that the petitioners were throwing the stones In this state of evidence therefore, it could not be said that there was no evidence in the case to prove that the petitioners were also throwing stones. Their presence in the mob or the unlawful assembly was also established. P.W.5 Harish Thaper also stated that the petitioners were throwing the stones In this state of evidence therefore, it could not be said that there was no evidence in the case to prove that the petitioners were also throwing stones. Their presence in the mob or the unlawful assembly was also established. I am therefore, of the opinion that the courts below committed no error in holding the petitioners guilty of the offence under section 147 I.P.C., though they are entitled to an acquittal under section 426 I.P.C. As regards sentence it may be stated that it was a usual strife between the Mill and its labourers. The petitioners have already suffered imprisonment for about 40 days and this in my opinion is enough in the interest of justice. 6. In the result the revision petition is partly accepted and the petitioners are acquitted of the offence under section 426 I.P.C. but their conviction is maintained under section 147 I.P.C. However,the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioners are on bail and they need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby cancelled.Revision partly accepted. *******