Judgment : R. Thangavel, who was arrayed as A-2 in a case tried for the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C, is the petitioner herein. 2. Along with A-1, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the said offence to undergo R.I. for, two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500 each, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichirapalli, In the appeal before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner were confirmed and A1 was acquitted. Hence, this revision. 3. The factual matrix are these: One Ramanujam, A-1 in this case, was the owner of the Revathi Photo Studio at Srirangam. The petitioner Thangaval, A-2, who is the dealer in antiques at Madras is his close friend. Both A-1 and A-2 during the month of March, 1987 went to Andal Sannathi in Srirangam temple and met P.W.I Rangaraja Iyengar, who was in charge of maintenance of Andal Sannathi. Both of them falsely represented. Posing themselves as devotees of Andal and made P.W.I to believe that both of them would do repair works of 30 art paintings of Andal Thiruppavai Pasurangal available at Sannathi as their "Tamil" By such false representation they induced P.W.I to deliver the said 30 art paintings to their custody. Having obtained these art paintings on making such false representation, the petitioner (A-2) sold 12 out of them to P.W.7 Deenadayalan, antiqudedealer at Madras, for Rs.36,000 after preparing duplicate for the same for substitution. 4. On 26.7.1987 at about 10.00 a.m. on receipt of reliable information that the petitioner, A-2, was in possession of stolen antiques, P.W.13, the Inspector of Police (Idol theft case Wing) sent advance intimation Ex.P-13 to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter, he along with other police personnel and mahazar witness P.W.12 Sekar went to Nainiappan Maistry Street, Madras and searched the shop of the petitioner. The search list is Ex.P-11. During the course of search, P.W. 13 recovered eight paintings M.Os. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 from the shop after recording confession statement from the petitioner. The admissible portion is Ex.P-12. 5. Thereafter, the case was registered in Crime No. 16 of 1987 under Sec. 41(2) read with 102, Crl.P.C. The F.I.R. is Ex.P-14. During the course of search, P.W. 13 recovered eight paintings M.Os. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 from the shop after recording confession statement from the petitioner. The admissible portion is Ex.P-12. 5. Thereafter, the case was registered in Crime No. 16 of 1987 under Sec. 41(2) read with 102, Crl.P.C. The F.I.R. is Ex.P-14. In pursuance of the confession, in order to recover the remaining stolen antigues, P.W. 13 and others went along with the petitioner, who pointed out Aparna Art Gallery in Bava Rowther Road, whose proprietor is P.W.7. Deenadayalan the petitioner, A-2, pointed out P.W.7 to whom he sold the other antiques, P.W.7 admitted the same and handed over 12 Andal Pasuram paintings, M.Os.1, 5, 8, 11, 13, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 29. These were recovered under Mahazar Ex.P-6 attested by P.W.12 and others. 6. On the information given by A-2 that other 10 paintings are available with A-1 at Srirangam, on 28.7.1987 P.W.13 and others came to A-ls Revathi Photo Studio and interrogated him. On his arrest, he gave a confession. The admissible portion is Ex.P9. Thereafter, he took the police party to his house and took out 10 paintings M.Os.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 30. Along with them the duplicate pictures, frames, etc. were recovered. The Mahazar is Ex.P-10, attested by P.W.10. 7. On 4.8.1987, P.W.13 examined P.W.1 and P.W.3, P.W.1 stated that he was given Rs.3,000 by A2 in order to do the repairing works in Andal Sannathi. P.W.3 would state that he was given Rs.10,000 by A-2 requesting to spend the same for Samrokshanam after finishing the repairing works of 30 art paintings entrusted to him. The said Rs.10,000 was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-5. Heexamined P.Ws.4 and 5 who are the Executive Officers of the temple. 8. P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 identified the 30 art paintings as they belong to the temple. P.W.14, on 28.8.1987 took up investigation. He obtained Ex.P-3, copy of the Register from the Executive Officer of the temple. This Ex.P-3 would show that these 30 art paintings were donated on 5.12.1903 by Sowrangaiah Chettiar of Chenna Pattanam. After investigation. P.W.14 filed a charge-sheet on 10.11.1988 against A-1 and A-2.” 9. To establish the case of the prosecution, they examined 14 witnesses filed 14 exhibits and marked M.Os.l to 37 series. This Ex.P-3 would show that these 30 art paintings were donated on 5.12.1903 by Sowrangaiah Chettiar of Chenna Pattanam. After investigation. P.W.14 filed a charge-sheet on 10.11.1988 against A-1 and A-2.” 9. To establish the case of the prosecution, they examined 14 witnesses filed 14 exhibits and marked M.Os.l to 37 series. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D-2 were marked. 10. After trial, the trial court convicted both the accused for the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. and sentenced them as referred to above. 11. Both the accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. Though the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction imposed upon the petitioner, A-2, acquitted Al mainly on the ground that A1, the owner of the photo studio situated just opposite to the temple, simply introduced A-2 to P.W. 1 and that he did not make any false representation and the said representation, which induced P.W. 1 to part with 30 Art paintings, was made only by A-2. As against the confirmation of the conviction on A-2, the present revision. 12. Mr.N. Natarajan, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would press into service the following contentions: “P.W.1 and P.W.3 have actually participated in the alleged crime. So, they are accomplice and their evidence should not be relied upon. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the 30 Art Paintings, as there is no scientific test and there is no attempt to make a proper assessment of Antiques through archaeological Department and the age of the paintings was not found out through proper investigation. With regard to the evidence in respect of the identity marks of 30 Art Paintings, there is vital variation between P.Ws.1 and 3. Both these witnesses would admit that there is no special marks in these art paintings. P.W.7 himself would admit that he purchased from the petitioner, A-2, since it was stated to be the antiques belonged to Udayarpalayam Mirasudar. But, there was no investigation on this aspect. P.W.13, the investigating officer is the first informant in this case, From the beginning, the investigation made by P.W.13 was assisted by P.W.14. But, in the middle P.W.14 took charge and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the investigation by P.W.13 and P.W.14 cannot be said to be a fair one, as they are the complaints as well as the investigating officers.” 13. But, in the middle P.W.14 took charge and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the investigation by P.W.13 and P.W.14 cannot be said to be a fair one, as they are the complaints as well as the investigating officers.” 13. The learned Government Advocate, in support of the judgments of the courts below, would repel the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out various reasonings given in the judgments and contend that there is no case made out for interference in the revision. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made on either side. I have also carefully scrutinized the judgments of both the courts below under revision and the case records. 15. Before launching discussion on the merits of this case, let me at the threshold go into the scope of the revision under Secs.387 and 401, Crl.P.C. in order to decide, how far, this Court under the revisional jurisdiction could interfere with the findings of facts and the conclusion on appreciation of materials arrived at by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 16. The scope of the jurisdiction of the court in revision on concurrent findings has been elaborately dealt with in the following decisions. (1) Esakki Thevar v. State Esakki Thevar v. State , 1959 M.W.N. (Crl.) 136; (2) Pranab Kumar Mitra v. West Bengal State Pranab Kumar Mitra v. West Bengal State , 1959 M.W.N. (Crl.) 1; (3) Raghavan Pillai v. Gourikutty Amma Raghavan Pillai v. Gourikutty Amma , A.I.R. 1960 Ker. 119; (4) Durai 17. The gist of the guidelines and the principles to be taken note of, while dealing with the revisional jurisdiction, could be summarised as follows. 18. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is wide, in so far as, the High Court can consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. But, even so, this jurisdiction is not to be exercised in every case of impropriety or illegality, unless it caused failure of justice. 18. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is wide, in so far as, the High Court can consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. But, even so, this jurisdiction is not to be exercised in every case of impropriety or illegality, unless it caused failure of justice. As a broad proposition, it may be stated that the inference may be justified where: (a) the decision is grossly erroneous; (b) there is no compliance on the provisions of law; (c) the finding of facts affecting the decision is not based on evidence; (d) the material evidence of the parties has been overlooked; (e) the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 19. The revisional power of this Court under Secs.397 and 401, Crl.P.C. is a kind of supervisory jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from the misconception of law. These two sections do not confer unfettered jurisdiction on this Court on re-appraisal of evidence. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice, this Court could interfere with such findings of facts. 20. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is not justified in substituting its own view for that of the trial court on question of fact on re-appreciation of evidence. While considering the legality, propriety or correctness on a finding or conclusion in the revisional jurisdiction, normally, the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts on evidence. The court of revision considers the materials only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the finding and refrain from substitution its own conclusion or an elaborate consideration of evidence. 21. In the light of the above legal principles enunciated by this Court, other High Courts and the Apex Court, this Court is called upon to consider the question as to whether any case has been made out by the petitioner in this revision so that, the findings of facts recorded by both the courts below could be interfered with. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 would strenuously contend that they have actually participated in the alleged crime, as such, they are accomplices and so, their evidence should not be relied upon. This submission in my view lacks substance. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 would strenuously contend that they have actually participated in the alleged crime, as such, they are accomplices and so, their evidence should not be relied upon. This submission in my view lacks substance. 23. The crime alleged in this case is getting the Antiques by false representation that it would be handed over back to the temple after repairing, but, selling the same to P.W.7. In this main part, it cannot be alleged that P.W.1 and P.W.3 have participated. According to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they simply handed over the antiques believing the representation made by A-2, the petitioner herein, hoping that they would be returned back after repairing. In this background, it cannot be said that they are accomplices. 24. No doubt, P.W.1 ought not to have handed over the 30 antiques to A-2 on being introduced by Al who is running a photo studio just opposite to the temple without permission from the temple management. It is true that P.W.1 handed over the antiques in violation of the rule relating to the temple administration. But it does not mean that he participated in the offence of cheating. The totality of the evidence let in by the prosecution before the court would show that P.W.1 was the victim, as he was removed from his job, after the incident was brought to light. 25. Similarly, P.W.3 who is connected with the temple Samrokshanam believed the words of A-2 and received Rs.10,000 for the purpose of performing the Samrokshanam, after the 30 paintings are handed back to the temple. In other words, if P. W. 1 and P.W.3 had known about the future plan of A-2 of selling the same to the antique dealers, P.W.1 and P.W.3 would not have handed over the antiques M.Os.1 to 30 to the petitioner A-2. So to say, there is no material whatsoever, to show that they were party to the cheating. If that is so, P.W.3 would not have kept the said money of Rs.10,000 handed over by A-2 all along with him. Therefore, P.W.1 and P.W.3 would not be considered to be the accomplices. In this situation, their evidence can be accepted by this Court, if it is otherwise reliable. 26. Let us now see whether the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 would inspire confidence. 27. Therefore, P.W.1 and P.W.3 would not be considered to be the accomplices. In this situation, their evidence can be accepted by this Court, if it is otherwise reliable. 26. Let us now see whether the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 would inspire confidence. 27. P.W.1 was the Junior Engineer in the Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. On deputation he was sent to Sri Rangam Temple in order to audit the accounts of the lands belonging to the endowment. Admittedly, during the relevant period P.W.1 was the pooja paricharigar. The evidence of P.W.2 Tmt Rajammal, P.W.4 Srinivasan, Executive Officer of the temple and P.W.5 the Manager of the temple would make it clear that P.W.1 was incharge of Andal Sannadhi where these M.Os. 1 to 30 the art paintings, were kept in the Prakaram. 28. P.W.1 would state that Al is having a photo studio in front of the temple. A-1 who used to perform poojas and being a contractor for some temple work for a long time, came to the temple Sannadhi and introduced the petitioner A-2 to him. On that day, A-2 probably in order to gain confidence of P.W.1 gave Rs.3,000 to spend for Andal Sannadhi Thirupani. After some days, again A-1 and A-2 came to the temple. This time, A-2 requested to hand over the 30 Antiques kept in Andal Sannadhi prakaram which became faded assuring that he would repair and give back the same after some days. A-1 who got long association with the temple, also would say that he would also help in the repairing work. So, only on the basis of this representation without knowing that the said representation was false. P.W.1 handed over the same. 29. P.W.3 also would speak about the entrustment of the 30 antiques to A2 for repairing. As indicated earlier, P.W.3 was made to believe that the receipt of the Art Paintings by A-2 was only for repairing and that samrokshanam would be performed after repairing the same and on that basis he had also received Rs.10,000 from A-2. 30. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 on this aspect is clear and cogent. Merely because they did not obtain permission from the temple authority for doing so, the entire evidence of these witnesses, who have admitted their fault of not obtaining permission from the temple authority, cannot be rejected. 30. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 on this aspect is clear and cogent. Merely because they did not obtain permission from the temple authority for doing so, the entire evidence of these witnesses, who have admitted their fault of not obtaining permission from the temple authority, cannot be rejected. Therefore, the reasonings given by the trial court and the lower appellate court for believing the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 in the light of the above observation, cannot be said to be improper. 31. The second aspect, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, is the failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the M.Os.l to 30 to show that they belong to the temple. 32. P.W.13 and P.W.14 the investigating officers would admit that there is no assessment of value of the Antiques by the Archaeological Department and also there is no scientific examination of the same with reference to the age of the paintings. In my view, both value assessment and scientific examination could have been done by the investigating agency in this case. But the failure to do so, would not lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the paintings. 33. In fact, there are other sufficient materials available in this case to establish the same. According to prosecution, 8 M.Os. were recovered from A-2, 12 M.Os. were recovered from P.W.7 and 10 M.Os. were recovered from A-1. According to prosecution, all the witnesses connected with the temple administration, during the course of investigation, identified the M.Os. Besides this, P.W.1 and P.W.3 would specifically give the particulars of the identity mark stating that in M.O.21, it is mentioned that 30 Art Paintings were donated by Sowrangaiah Chettiar Charities to the Andal Sannadhi on 5.12.1903, It is further mentioned in M.O.21 that the same 30 Art Paintings were renovated on 14.12.1956. This has been written in M.O.21 both in Tamil and Telugu. Apart from that, P.W.1 while identifying M.O.17, pointed out the fadeness in the paintings due to rains. 34. However, the suggestion made by the accused to the witnesses is that these writings found in M.O.21 were written subsequent to the recovery of the same in order to suit the convenience of the prosecution. According to prosecution. Apart from that, P.W.1 while identifying M.O.17, pointed out the fadeness in the paintings due to rains. 34. However, the suggestion made by the accused to the witnesses is that these writings found in M.O.21 were written subsequent to the recovery of the same in order to suit the convenience of the prosecution. According to prosecution. Ex.P-3, the document of the temple administration would show that the 30 Art paintings were donated by the Sowrangaiah Chettiar Charities on 5.12.1903. But, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the details of these writings have not been mentioned in Ex.P-10 the recovery Mahazar. This submission may not be correct. Had it been later written in M.O. 21, the words contained in Ex.P-3 to suit the prosecution case, the same thing would have been written in Ex.P-10 also. 35. Similarly, these wordings would have been made in other M.Os. as well. That apart, P.W.1 and P.W.3 whowere connected with the temple for long years and P.W.4 and P.W.5 who were the Executive Officers of the temple, emphatically in their deposition stated that they could identify the Art plaintiffs which were kept in the prakaram of Andal Sannadhi for a long number of years, as they used to see them every now and then. 36. As held in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Om Prakash State of Himachal Pradesh v. Om Prakash , 1973 L.W. (Crl.) 161 the witnesses were competent to speak about their identity of the paintings, since they were maintained by them for a very long time, even if there was no identifiable marks. 37. This apart, as pointed by the learned Government Advocate, while cross examining P.W.1, the suggestion put by the accused was denied by him. The same is as follows: "Tamil" 38. Similarly, the same suggestion was put to P.W.3 also. This is as follows: "Tamil" 39. By these suggestions, it is submitted by the Government Advocate that the accused virtually admitted that the M.Os. 1 to 30 belonged to the temple. 40. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The case of the petitioner as suggested by him to the witnesses that M.Os. 1 to 30 which belonged to him were recovered from him on 26.7.1987. According to P.W.7, he purchased 12 Art Paintings from the petitioner, since he told that the same was purchased from the Udayarpalayam Mirasudar. 40. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The case of the petitioner as suggested by him to the witnesses that M.Os. 1 to 30 which belonged to him were recovered from him on 26.7.1987. According to P.W.7, he purchased 12 Art Paintings from the petitioner, since he told that the same was purchased from the Udayarpalayam Mirasudar. On the strength of this Statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of all the M.Os. 1 to 30 and since it was purchased from Udayarpalayam Mirasudar and that if the investigation had been conducted on this aspect, the police would have found out the truth. This submission also does not merit acceptance. 41. As a matter of fact, a suggestion was put to P.W.14, the investigating officer by accused that in order to save P.W.7, a false statement was recorded by the police form P.W.7 as if, that he were told by the petitioner that the Art Paintings were purchased from Udayarpalayam Mirasudar. 42. Moreover, in the petition filed by A-2 before the lower court, Ex.D-1, for return of property, the petitioner mentioned that he purchased the same from Al Ramanujam of Sri Rangam. 43. Further more, though the petitioner obtained an order from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Madras in his favour, on the application filed by the investigating officer, D-2, the learned Magistrate directed the Art paintings to be deposited in the lower court, as it was stated that the charge-sheet had already been filed. Admittedly, there was no application for return of property by the petitioner either during the course of trial or at the conclusion of the trial under Sec.452, Crl.P.C. If really, as now put forward by the counsel for the petitioner, that the Art paintings were purchased by him from the Udayarpalayam Mirasudar, the petitioner should have taken steps to produce materials to prove the same, since he claimed that the said property belonged to him. This was not done. In the light of the above factual situation, the case of the defence deserves outright rejection. Therefore, regarding identity in my view, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 would be sufficient as found by both the courts below. 44. In this case, as referred to earlier, the recovery of 30 Art Paintings were made. This was not done. In the light of the above factual situation, the case of the defence deserves outright rejection. Therefore, regarding identity in my view, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 would be sufficient as found by both the courts below. 44. In this case, as referred to earlier, the recovery of 30 Art Paintings were made. The first recovery from A-2 himself was made on 26.7.1987. The second recovery from P.W.7 at his shop, on its being pointed by A-2, was made on the same day. On the basis of the information given by A-2, recovery was made from A-1 at Srirangam on 28.7.1987. In this context, the evidence of P.W.7, who has no axe to grind against the petitioner, assumes very great significance. P.W.7 would state that he purchased 12 antiques from A-2. A-1 would state in the statement under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. that 10 M.Os. were handed over by A-2 for repairing. But the statement of A-2, as a defence, is that all the 30 antiques were recovered from him on the same day, that is, on 26.7.1987. Had there been recovery of these 30 Antiques from A-2 on the same day. i.e., on 26.7.1987, there was no need for the investigating officer to send Form No.91 to the court showing that 8 antiques have been recovered from A-1 and 12 from P.W.7 It must be noted that not even a suggestion regarding any enmity or motive was made to the investigating officer. 45. In fact, but for A-2s information, P.W.7 would not have been traced. Similarly, but for A-2s information, other 10 antiques would not have been recovered from A-1 at Srirangam. It shall also be noticed at this stage that till the recovery of these items, there was no complaint, whatsoever, either from P.W. 1 or from the temple authority. This would make it clear that P. W. 1 and P. W.3 were under the impression that the 30 Art Paintings would be returned after the repair work is over. 46. There is yet another aspect. The case of the A-2, as stated earlier, is that all the 30 antiques were recovered from him on 26.7.1987 and a false case has been foisted against him. During the course of investigation, the petitioner/A-2 filed an application, Ex.D-1 for return of the 30 antiques. 46. There is yet another aspect. The case of the A-2, as stated earlier, is that all the 30 antiques were recovered from him on 26.7.1987 and a false case has been foisted against him. During the course of investigation, the petitioner/A-2 filed an application, Ex.D-1 for return of the 30 antiques. In that petition, he stated that portion of the antiques were recovered from him on 26.7.1987 and the other portion of the antiques were recovered from A-1 at Srirangam. He had mentioned in the said petition that the said antiques, which were recovered from him, were purchased from A-1 Ramanujam at Srirangam. 47. On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioner/ A-2, now put forward, that he purchased the said antiques from Udayarpalayam Mirasudar, as referred to in the statement of P.W.7 and that was not properly investigated by the investigating officer. Of course, in criminal cases, there may be contradictory stand by the accused, But, in the peculiar facts of this case, especially, when the properties have been claimed by A-2 as that of his own. The different stand taken by the petitioner at different stages would strengthen the prosecution case that M.Os. belong to the temple and that the same were recovered from three places only on the information given by A-2. 48. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.7 and P. W.8 which was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 would go to show that sale by A-2 and receipt of sale consideration for the same was true. As a matter of fact, P.W.7 who has got a close and long association with the petitioner/A-2 need not have to speak falsehood against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner did not put any suggestion to P.W.7 that there was no recovery from P.W.7 on his being pointed out by A-2 nor was any enmity suggested. Therefore, the prosecution, in my opinion, has established the evidence of recovery as well. 49. The next point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is about the illegality committed in the investigation, as the first informant and the investigating officer, who filed the charge-sheet, are the same. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions. 49. The next point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is about the illegality committed in the investigation, as the first informant and the investigating officer, who filed the charge-sheet, are the same. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions. (1) Megha Singh v. State of Haryana Megha Singh v. State of Haryana , 1997 S.C.C. (Crl.) 267; and (2) State v. Krishnasami Iyer and others State v. Krishnasami Iyer and others , (1997) 2 L.W. (Crl.) 751. 50. Both the decisions would say that the complainant police officer should not carry on the investigation and file the charge sheet, as the occasion would arise to suspect fair and impartial investigation. 51. In Megha Singh v. State of Haryana Megha Singh v. State of Haryana , 1997 S.C.C. (Crl.) 267 the Apex Court, while acquitting the accused in a TADA case, considering the case of the accused and disbelieving the evidence of witnesses, deprecated the practice of the first informant who registered the F.I.R. proceeding with the investigation himself. 52. In State v. Krishnasami Iyer and others State v. Krishnasami Iyer and others , (1997) 2 L.W. (Crl.) 751 this Court, on the strength of the above decision of the Apex Court, in a case of appeal against acquittal, would hold that it is not a matter of healthy practice and it would not be conducive to fair and impartial investigation for the complainant himself to be an investigating officer. However, in this decision, it has been held that there is no specific statutory bar in the Criminal Procedure Code for the first informant himself being an investigating officer. 53. It is pointed out by the Government Advocate by citing , petitioner 2nd accused, 1991 L. W. (Crl.) 534, that merely because the investigation was carried on by the officer who registered the F.I.R. as the first informant, the entire case cannot be thrown out, in the absence of any motive. 54. 53. It is pointed out by the Government Advocate by citing , petitioner 2nd accused, 1991 L. W. (Crl.) 534, that merely because the investigation was carried on by the officer who registered the F.I.R. as the first informant, the entire case cannot be thrown out, in the absence of any motive. 54. In the light of the said submission, if we look at the case on hand, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that merely because PW.13 who registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation for some time upto a particular stage, cannot be said to be unfair and partial, inasmuch as the subsequent portion of the investigation was conducted by P.W.14, who filed the charge-sheet in this case. No doubt, it is true that P.W.14 assisted by P.W.13 at the initial stage of the investigation but that aspect may not cause any dent in the genuineness of the investigation, in the absence of any motive or prejudice, as the other materials would go to show that the effective investigation conducted in this case has unearthed the real state of affairs. In view of what is stated above, the petitioner fails on this ground as well. 55. As stated in the earlier paragraphs, unless I could identify some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice or perversity in the findings rendered by the courts below, this Court could not interfere with the judgments of the courts below. In view of the discussion made above. I do not find any such illegality resulting in the failure of justice in this case. On the other hand, I find that the reasonings given by the courts below for coming to the said conclusion are on the basis of meticulous appreciation in the proper perspective. 56. The trial court, at the conclusion, directed that out of the fine imposed upon the petitioner, a sum of Rs.2,500 was to be given to the Srirangam Temple for the renovation of the Andal Sannadhi. It further directed that the M.O.38 series, namely, Rs.10,000 was to be confiscated to the State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to direct that the M.O.38 series, namely, Rs.10,000 also be handed over to the Srirangam Temple for renovation work. 57. It further directed that the M.O.38 series, namely, Rs.10,000 was to be confiscated to the State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to direct that the M.O.38 series, namely, Rs.10,000 also be handed over to the Srirangam Temple for renovation work. 57. With this modification, the revision, which has no merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, no order is necessary in Crl.M.P.No.3499 of 1998.