JUDGMENT : 1. - The accused petitioner was convicted for having committed offence under Section 394 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur, District Jaipur to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo one month's sample imprisonment vide judgment dated December 19,1989. The accused petitioner preferred appeal against the said judgment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur vide judgment dated February 6, 1999 dismissed the appeal. Hence this criminal revision. 2. The prosecution case as set out in the FIR is that on June 9,1979 when informant Smt. Goma was going alone to her parental house after sun- set near Dhandh River two persons stopped her way, gave Lathi blow on her person and snatched her ornaments. When she shouted one Gyarsi Lal and Chhitar came there to whom she narrated the story. The investigation commenced. The accused petitioner Kailash and another co-accused Bhanwariya Meena were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation. Charge under Section 394 Indian Penal Code was framed and read over to the petitioner. The accused petitioner denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, thereafter under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code statement of the accused petitioner was recorded. The petitioner produced one defence witness. Thereafter the learned Trial Court convicted the accused petitioner as indicated herein above. 3. Mr. Bhagirath Singh Shekhawat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that identification memo was not exhibited and the Tehsildar who conducted the identification proceedings of the ornaments was not examined, therefore the accused petitioner could not have been convicted. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Rathore supported the impugned judgment and urged that this Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. 5. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code is limited and is only for the satisfaction as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of an inferior Court. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code is limited and is only for the satisfaction as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of an inferior Court. The revisional Court may interfere with an order of interior Court only if it suffers from any infirmity, that is, where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice. The scope of revision against concurrent findings of fact is very limited since, ordinarily, the revisional Court would be loath to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless and until the misreading of evidence or perversity or manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice is successfully pointed out. Therefore in the instant revision I have to see as to whether there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law in the impugned judgments. 6. A look at the FIR Ex. P/ 1 goes to show that the informant Goma did not know the accused petitioner and other co-accused Bhoriya. In the initial part of the FIR she stated that two persons came there. She further stated that when Gyarsi Lal and Chhitar after hearing her hue and cry came over there, those persons after snatching her ornaments fled away. When she narrated this story to Gyarsi Lal and Chhitar then they informed her that those persons were Kailash and Bhoriya Meena. Admittedly identification memo of the ornaments was not exhibited as Tehsildar who conducted the identification proceedings was not produced by the prosecution. There is one more important aspect of the matter that on June 9, 1979 one Gendilal, who is real brother of informant Coma also lodged a report (Ex. P/71) with the Police Station Amer and in that report also name of the petitioner Kailash was not mentioned. 7. In Punja and Others v. The State of Rajasthan. it was indicated that the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade is not examined then no value can be attached to the identification proceedings. 8. I have closely scrutinised the statements of Chhitar PW 3, and Gyarsi Lal PW 8. 7. In Punja and Others v. The State of Rajasthan. it was indicated that the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade is not examined then no value can be attached to the identification proceedings. 8. I have closely scrutinised the statements of Chhitar PW 3, and Gyarsi Lal PW 8. Both these witnesses categorically stated in examination-in-chief that they reached at the spot after hearing hue and cry of Goma. They are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They had only stated that they had seen the accused running near the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination Chhitar PW 3 stated that when he reached near the lady he found the lady unconscious. He has further stated in the cross-examination that when he and Gyarsi handed over the lady to her husband, he informed her husband that two persons were beating the lady. This witness further admitted that he did not follow the accused. Witness Gyarsi Lal PW 8 also stated in examination-in-chief that in the month of June, 1979 he had seen two persons beating a lady and after hearing hue and cry of the lady he did not go near her. In his cross-examination he stated that the lady informed him that her ornaments had been snatched by the accused. This fact goes to show that he is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. 9. Both the Courts below in my considered view did not properly scrutinise the statements of Gyarsi Lal and Chhitar and without examining the Tehsildar who conducted identification proceedings of the ornaments convicted the accused petitioner under Section 394 Indian Penal Code. I find a glaring defect in the procedure and manifest error on a point of law in the impugned judgments and consequently in my opinion there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice in the instant case. 10. In view of what I have discussed herein above, I allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned judgments of the Courts below. The accused petitioner is in judicial custody, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Revision Petition allowed. *******