JUDGMENT 1. - The case of the prosecution in short is that on 19.4.1982 PW 1 Budhi presented a written report /complaint (Exh. P/ 1) before the Circle Police Officer, Bayana, which is reproduced, as under : "xxx xxx xxx xxx" 2. The aforesaid report was forwarded by the Circle Officer to the SHO Police Station, Veir which was registered as FIR No. 30 on 23.4.1982 for offence under Section 392, IPC. Shri Nohar Singh, ASI was appointed as I.O. who arrested the convict-petitioner on 21.7.1982 vide Arrest Memo (Exh. P/4). Accused-Nirbhay Singh who is the immediate neighbour of complainant-Budhi (PW 1) is alleged to have unlawfully entered into the residential premises of the complainant about 15 days prior to the Holi festival at about 7-8 p.m. and after making his unlawful entry in his premises conveyed the threat that they should arrange the payment of money due on his account from them failing which, they will be done to death. Thereafter, he took out the pistol/katta pointing out the same on Chander Singh, the adopted son of complainant-Budhi. With a view to word of danger which was imminent on Chander Singh, Laxmi wife of Chander Singh (PW 3) exhorted the accused not to take the life of her husband and immediately handed over four gold bangles which she was wearing on her fore arms. Thereafter, accused-Nirbhay Singh left the place of occurrence conveying the threats to the member of the complainant's family. The statement of PW 2 Chander Singh is corroborated by the evidence of PW 4 Ratan son of Gyasia and PW 5 Lohre son of Gyasia who are both neighbours of the complainant and have categorically supported the version of PW 2 Chander Singh. 3. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the Bar that neither the alleged pistol/katta (country made) with which the accused-petitioner had committed the offence nor the gold bangles have been recovered from the petitioner though, search was made from the shopkeeper, Cori Shankar (PW 6) at Agra to whom the accused is purported to have sold the gold bangles. The Trial Court on the basis of the detailed evidence as referred to above, found the petitioner guilty of the charge and convicted him to undergo RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. The Trial Court on the basis of the detailed evidence as referred to above, found the petitioner guilty of the charge and convicted him to undergo RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 200/- and 2 months RI for default in payment of fine for offence under Section 392, IPC vide its impugned order dated 8.6.1992. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana and the said Court while confirming the findings of conviction as recorded by the Trial Court, partly accepted the appeal by reducing the RI of 2 years to RI for 6 months while maintained the fine of Rs. 200/-. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 392, IPC has been maintained, he has come up before this Court by way of instant revision petition. 5. In support of his contentions advanced at the Bar, Mr. S.K. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the Bar that neither the recovery of pistol/katta which was allegedly used by the accused-petitioner for commission of offence nor the gold bangles was made by the Investigating Officer and hence in the absence of this material evidence with regard to recovery, the conviction of the accused- petitioner cannot be sustained, He has further contended that in view of good neighbourly relations subsisting between the parties, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for remission on the question of sentence. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner's Counsel by contending at the Bar that the statement of the complainant (PW 1) is fully corroborated by the evidence of the witnesses PW 2 Chander Singh, PW 3 Laxmi wife of Chander Singh, PW 4 Ratan and PW 5 Lohre who are all neighbours of the complainant and there is no reason as to why they should be disbelieved and their testimony be discarded. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has failed to explain as to what was the main fides on the part of the complainant in implicating the petitioner as well as his neighbours, who have supported the complainant's version. There is no evidence on the record regarding the strained relations between the parties. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has failed to explain as to what was the main fides on the part of the complainant in implicating the petitioner as well as his neighbours, who have supported the complainant's version. There is no evidence on the record regarding the strained relations between the parties. As regards the recovery of gold bangles and pistol/katta which could not be made by the police, I am of the view that the petitioner had in all probability sufficient time to dispose of the gold bangles to the jeweller and also the pistol/katta and hence recovery could not be effected. This by itself cannot be treated as mitigating circumstance to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below. The scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very limited as per the requirements of section 401, Cr.P.C. which should be sparingly exercised in the exceptional and deserving cases unless, there is glaring defect in the procedure or manifest apparent on the record or there is manifest error on the point of law and consequently it is only in those exceptional cases where there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice that this Court should exercise its revisional powers with restriction and circumspection in appropriate and deserving cases. 7. I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of Narayan Tewary v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 726 and Khetra Basi Samal and Another v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272 , wherein, the Apex Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 401, Cr.P.C. is not to be lightly exercised specially in those cases when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the State has a right of appeal. Since the maximum sentence for which the accused can be punished for offence under Section 392, IPC is RI of 10 years with a fine, in the instant case, the Appellate Court after having taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances, specially the accused and the complainant being neighbours had reduced the sentence of 2 years RI to 6 months RI while maintaining the fine of Rs. 200/- as imposed by the Trial Court does not call for any interference. 200/- as imposed by the Trial Court does not call for any interference. Hence, I do not find any justification for taking contrary view of the matter. 8. As a result of above discussion, the revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment of the Appellate Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana dated 5.2.1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 8/1992 is confirmed and upheld. The summoned record be sent back immediately.Revision Petition dismissed. *******