JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on 12-5-77 and the Sessions Judge, Tonk on 7-1-81. 2. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Rajasthan Religious and Places Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954), the trial court on the basis of evidence found the petitioners guilty for the offence u/s 6 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1954 and sentenced them to 3 months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-each. The appeal filed by the applicants was also dismissed. Hence this miscellaneous application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case it has not been proved that the place where the installation of idol is alleged is a public religious building. He further submitted that after going through the entire evidence of the case, it does not transpire that the accused-appellants committed the offence under the Act of 1954, because there is no evidence to this effect that the applicants were the only persons who installed the idol at the disputed Chabutra. 5. Learned PP on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have been rightly convicted by the trial court. He further submitted that in the concurrent finding of the court below powers u/s 412, Cr. PC cannot be exercised in this case. 6. I have considered the arguments of both the the learned counsel and have perused the entire record. 7. As stated earlier, definitely this is case of concurrent finding. Both the courts below found the accused-applicants guilty for the offence u/s 6/11 of the Act of 1954. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is a general rule that the High Court will not interfere in a finding of fact and this is specially so in the cases of concurrent finding of facts of the lower courts. This is a settled principle of law that the High Court under the guise of revision or application were to allow conclusion of facts based on evidence to be canvased and attacked on the basis of an appeal. This is a settled principle of law that the High Court under the guise of revision or application were to allow conclusion of facts based on evidence to be canvased and attacked on the basis of an appeal. The High Court will not, therefore, interfere in the finding arrived at by the courts below while exercising its inherent powers on the ground that the courts blow wrongly appreciated the evidence, or that the High Courts feels that the view taken by the courts below is not possible after going through the evidence Because of the aforesaid principles, this court will not like to go into the merits of the case. The High Court exercising the powers of S. 482, Cr. PC or Section 401, Cr. PC simply has to see tat there may not a case of abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. 8. If the instant case is examined in the light of aforesaid principle, I am f the opinion that the courts below have discussed the evidence at length with care and caution, and ofter serious scrutiny the accused-applicants were found guilty. The then Collector, Tonk and the Addl. s.P., Tonk also appeared as prosecution witnesses and stated that on the disputed Chabutra they saw the idol. In the statement under section 313, Cr. PC, accused-petitioners Laxmi Narain, Suraj, Jagdish, and Lala have stated that the temple on the disputed chabutra has been constructed by one Rajendra Kumar. It is thus clear that before filling the complaint and on the day of inspection by the Collector and the Addl. S.P., Tonk, the chabutra in dispute was in the shape of a religious building. The words 'building' and 'religious' are defined in Section 4 of the Act of 1954, wherein 'building' includes any sort of structure, whether roofed or not. Similarly, the words 'religious' means any building or place which is intended to be used for the purpose of religious worship or offering prayers, or performance of any religious rites by persons of or belonging to any religion or that such place is likewise used or intended to be used shall be covered by the definition of the word 'religious'. Looking to the aforesaid definition of the words 'building' and 'religious', it is clear that the disputed chabutra was the religious building at the relevant time. Now, the question arises as to who had constructed that religious building. Looking to the aforesaid definition of the words 'building' and 'religious', it is clear that the disputed chabutra was the religious building at the relevant time. Now, the question arises as to who had constructed that religious building. In this regard, the trial court as well as the appellate court bades their finding on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 4, who have stated the presence of the accused-applicants. PW 4 Gendlal in his cross-examination admitted that Moti, Narain, Jagannath, Kalyan and Ghasi were not present at the place of occurrence, but the other witnesses have disclosed the presence of these persons. At the time when the case is to be examined under section 482, Cr. PC or Section 401, Cr. PC, it is not possible for this court to reconsider the evidence of the prosecution, and at this stage there is no option but to uphold the findings of the courts below. Because of the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the courts below.I am convinced that the trial court committed an illegality in awarding maximum punishment to the accused-applicants. The maximum punishment for the offence under section 6/11 of the Act of 1954 is 3 months. I think it just and proper that the sentence of imprisonment should be quashed and the petitioners should only be punished with fine. 9. Accordingly, this miscellaneous application, is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioners is maintained, but their sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs. 100/- each only. Their sentence of imprisonment is set aside. The accused-petitioners shall deposit the fine in the trial court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the record in that court. If any amount of fine has been deposited, it shall be adjusted towards the fine imposed by this court and the petitioners shall be required to deposit the remaining amount of fine. In default of payment of fine each petitioner shall undergo 15 days SI.Appeal partly allowed. *******