JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated 1.7.1999 by which he maintained conviction and sentence of one year under section 452IPC and conviction under section 323 IPC and sentence thereunder for a period of six months passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Briefly stated, on 29.9.1992 Laxmi Narain Agarwal reported at Police Station Kotwali, Sriganganagar that at about 7.45 p.m. petitioner entered into the house of Dr. Praveen Garg in his absence and by showing a toy gun asked his wife to give money and her ornaments. When she refused, the petitioner gave her beatings and closed her in bathroom. Nurse Vijayama and compounders heard the noise and then went to the house of doctor where they caught hold of the petitioner. Case under sections 452 & 384 IPC was registered and investigated. After investigation challan was submitted. Learned Magistrate framed charges under sections 452, 384/511 & 323 IPC. They were read over to the petitioner. He denied his indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined four witnesses. Then the petitioner was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. His defence was that he was working in the house of Dr. Praveen Garg as he was laying down the floor on the upper store of the house of Dr. Garg. His defence further was that he was seen by Dr. Garg while doctor's wife Archana was talking to him and he suspected the character of his wife, therefore, he gave beatings to Archana and the petitioner. He was to take a sum of Rs. 2,200/-from Dr. Garg which was also not given and he has been involved in a false case. 4. Prosecution examined PW 1 Archana, PW 2 Jagdish Ram, PW 3 Dr. Praveen Garg, and PW 4 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma. On the basis of evidence the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offence under sections 452 & 323 IPC as stated above. In appeal they were confirmed. Hence this revision. 5. The legal position is that the revisional powers of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. In appeal they were confirmed. Hence this revision. 5. The legal position is that the revisional powers of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be proper for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. (See State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illth Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999(1) SC page 456) . In this view of the matter the learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding of fact. He simply submitted that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed it. The petitioner has already undergone a sentence of about five months which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under sections 452 & 323 IPC his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is maintained.Revision partly allowed. *******