N. B. ASTHANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been Directed against the judgment and order dated 7-2-1992 passed by IV Addi. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Case No. 156 of 1991 granting the revision and releasing the disputed crop in favour of opposite party No. 1 Kamtoo. ( 2 ) PROCEEDINGS in Criminal Case No. 12/90 under section 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated upon the application of the revisionist. It alleged that plot No. 587 having an area of 10. 71 aere in village Bidokhar Purai, Pargana Sumerpur, District Hamirpur belongs to the Deity. Smt. Jeewni kunwar was the tenure holder of the aforesaid plot. She executed a will on 7-8-1986 bequething the plot in question to the Deity. After her death the Deity came into possession. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 have nothing to do with f but during the mutation proceedings the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application for being made party to those mutation proceedings this application was allowed. More than a year has passed but the mutation case has not yet been decided. It was further said that the crop existing over the plot in question was sown and nurtured on behalf of the Deity but the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 want to destroy it. A report was called for from the Police Station concerned and on the basis of the report a preliminary order was passed on 26-3-1990. The crop was also attached and given in the supurdagi and a supurdgar. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 2 Kamtoo filed written statement in which he claimed possession on the basis of another will said to have been executed by Smt. Jeewni Kunwar in his favour. He, however, did not file the will said to have been executed by and Smt. Jeewni Kunwar in his favour. He also alleged his possession over the land in question as Karinda of Smt. Jeewni Kunwar for the last about 20-25 years. ( 4 ) THE trial court up-held the possession of the revisionist and directed that the crop be delivered to the first party. The second party was restrained not to interfere in the possession of the revisionist except in due course of law. ( 4 ) THE trial court up-held the possession of the revisionist and directed that the crop be delivered to the first party. The second party was restrained not to interfere in the possession of the revisionist except in due course of law. ( 5 ) KAMTOO filed Criminal Revision No. 156 of 1991 against the judgment and order passed by the S. D. M. which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 155 of 1991 and decided by IVth Addi. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 7-2-1992. He came to the conclusion that the crop in question was sown and reared by opposite party No. 2 and ordered its release in his favour. The Deity has now come to this Court in revision. ( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the revision the opposite party No. 2 filed the photostat copy of the death certificate of Smt. Jeewni Kunwar, photostat copy of the will dated 3-8-1986 and receipts of payment of rent. It does not appear that the will was proved as required by law nor there is anything on the record to indicate that the photostat copy of the death certificate was a certified one. These documents have not been proved nor they are proved to be public documents and as such the revisional court committed a mistake in relying upon those documents. In Smt. Zaitoon v. State of U. P. and another, it was held by this Court that in case of appeal there is specific provision in Criminal Procedure Code that additional evidence can be accepted but in case of revision there is no such provision. The reason is obvious that the revisional court has only to examine the illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment or order sought to be revised. The Sessions Judge in the instant case committed illegality in admitting evidence in revision. It would the appear that the revisional court committed illegally in admitting additional evidence in revision and relying upon it although it is not proved as required try law. The revision has therefore to be allowed. ( 7 ) THE revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The matter is remanded back to Sessions Judge, Hamirpur who would dispose of the revision afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Revision allowed. .