JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpai, J. - This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 16th September, 1981 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1980, Ram Ohawan v. State of U.P. convicting the applicant under Section 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 on each count. 2. The prosecution case was that Ram Dhawan the accused, while posted as Equipment Operator Grade I in the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Corporation) at Gorakhpur on being entitled to avail leave Travel concession applied for utilising the same and obtained advance money to proceed to Kanya Kumari and then back to Gorakhpur. The accused is alleged not to have proceeded to Kanya Kumari and received payment on a forged receipt. The case was investigated by the C.B.I. and the accused was charge sheeted. He was tried by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Magistrate 1st Class) at Lucknow under Sections 468/ 471/420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1000.00 on each count with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. In the trial the defence of the accused that he went to Kanya Kumari along with his wife, father and two Minor children and returned back by Car No. U.S.F. 2726 belonging to one Shamshad Ali Khan of Gorakhpur was disbelieved. On criminal appeal the Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentences to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 on each count. Aggrieved by this order the accused applicant has come up in criminal revision before this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate at some length and I have been taken through the evidence on record by the parties counsel. It has been urged before me by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution having failed to prove that the accused did not proceed to Kanya Kumari and having failed to appreciate the evidence on the record of the trial court the conviction cannot be maintained more so since no cogent much less convincing reasons have been recorded for disbelieving the defence witnesses. It is not in dispute that the applicant applied for availing leave travel concession and obtained an advance of Rs. 1160.00 towards this facility. Thereafter the accused submitted a T.A. Bill for Rs. 3160.00 being the alleged amount of expenditure incurred in the trip and obtained the balance amount of Rs. 1732.00 to which he was found entitled. A first information report (Ex. Ka. 47) was lodged by Sri S.C. Chaubey, S.P. C.B.I. and after investigation a charge-sheet (Ex. Ka. 54) was submitted against the accused under Sections 420/472/468 of the Indian Penal Code. A scrutiny of the evidence recorded by the trial Court would indicate that while recording a finding that Car No. U.S.F. 2726 never went to Kanya Kumari from Gorakhpur and back on examining Shamshad Ali P.W. 9, who is owner of the Car the trial Magistrate has held that the accused never performed the journey by the said Car. The reason for believing it is the testimony that Shamshad Ali who is alleged to be the owner of the Car did not in fact, as stated by him, gave his Car to the accused for the journey and the said Car was a private car and was not plied as taxi. The fact that the Car not being a taxi could not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it could not be given to the accused for his journey to Kanya Kumari and back and that the agent of the owner could not charge for having permitted the use of the Car to the accused for his journey. The learned lower appellate court also did not consider the matter in the correct perspective and confirmed the finding on this score which I have no hesitation in holding is a jurisdictional-error and has led to miscarriage of justice. It cannot be held that, the accused did not perform the journey. 4. The learned lower appellate court also did not consider the matter in the correct perspective and confirmed the finding on this score which I have no hesitation in holding is a jurisdictional-error and has led to miscarriage of justice. It cannot be held that, the accused did not perform the journey. 4. Even otherwise it will not be very appropriate to accept that a charge under Sections 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused more so since as stated above, there is no clinching evidence to establish that the journey in question was never undertaken since the payment made and accepted by the accused was a payment to which the accused was entitled under his service conditions and there cannot be any reason to believe in the absence of any cogent evidence to establish motive that there was any intention on the part of the accused to derive a wrongful gain to himself and put the Corporation to wrongful loss. In this view of the matter there was also no question and scrutiny of evidence also indicates that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge of committing forgery. The lower appellate court in my opinion was not justified in upholding the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused by the trial Magistrate. The learned Additional Government Advocate has cited decisions in the cases of Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another, 1979 ACC 74 (SC) and State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and others, AIR 1979 SC 663 as also Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, 1986 (23) ACC 495 (SC) on the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have iterated the well settled law about the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a criminal revision and have laid down that the revisional power has to be exercised in exceptional cases wherein there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. I think interference in revision in the case in hand would be fully justified in view of the fact that the findings of the two courts below are not based on any relevant consideration of evidence and are nothing but illegal exercise of jurisdiction and have led to flagrant miscarriage of justice. 5. I think interference in revision in the case in hand would be fully justified in view of the fact that the findings of the two courts below are not based on any relevant consideration of evidence and are nothing but illegal exercise of jurisdiction and have led to flagrant miscarriage of justice. 5. The revision is allowed and the judgment and orders of the courts below are set aside. The accused Ram Dhawan is acquitted of Charges under Sections 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code. He is on Bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.