JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 25.7.1992 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 150/92, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner and affirmed the conviction and sentenced passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') in Original Criminal Case No. 118/88, whereby the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under sections. 3/25 of the Arms Act (for short `the Act') and sentenced him to the imprisonment for the period already gone by him and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo seven days rigorous imprisonment. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment of the Courts below. 3. On 24.3.1988, police seized five live cartridges of 7.62 bore and a charger from the accused-petitioner without there being licence. After investigation, police filed challan against the petitioner for offence under sections. 3/25 of the Act. The prosecution produced PW-1 Murad Ali, Additional Superintendent of Police, PW-2 Raju, PW-3 Jogeshwar Singh, PW-4 Bhanwar Singh, PW-5 Moti Singh and PW-6 Chaturbhuj and proved search and seizure of the arms noticed above from the petitioner. A sanction was accorded by the District Magistrate vide Exhibit-P/7. The seized live cartridges were analysed by ballistic expert PW-8 Bhirmal Singh, vide Exhibit-P/11. PW-3 Jogeshwar Singh stated that the cartridges recovered from the petitioner were live. The trial Court examined various prosecution witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for offence under sections. 3/25 of the Act and convicted the petitioner as noticed above. Against the order of the conviction dated 15.9.1990, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Both the Court concurrently found the petitioner guilty of offence noticed above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the order impugned. It is settled law that in criminal revision this Court would not embark upon further re- appreciating the evidence. Even though, I have carefully scrutinised the record of the trial Court. Both the Court concurrently found the petitioner guilty of offence noticed above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the order impugned. It is settled law that in criminal revision this Court would not embark upon further re- appreciating the evidence. Even though, I have carefully scrutinised the record of the trial Court. The conclusion reached by the both Courts below holding the petitioner guilty for offence under sections. 3/25 of the Act cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse, on the contrary it is based on proper appreciation of the evidence with sound reasonings. This Court in revision exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restrictive nature and, therefore, the interference by this Court is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice would result in the event of non-interference. The case in hand is not of that nature. The finding of fact and conclusion recorded by the Courts below is eminently just and correct. Hence calls for no interference. 5. Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed.Revision dismissed *******