Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Salem, in C.C.No.303 of 2001, dated 8.8.2003 acquitting the respondents 2 to 6.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the acquittal of the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Salem, who were prosecuted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) A.1 is the son of A.2. A.3 to A.5 are sisters to A.1. A.1 and P.W.1, the revision petitioner herein got married on 7.6.1998 at Pazhayur in the house of A.1. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 was given 7 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels by her parents. After marriage, she lived with her husband's family. Two months after marriage, all the accused demanded P.W.1 to get more jewels from her parents as dowry and if she fails to bring 12 sovereigns of gold, she would not live with A.1. Thereafter, there was a Panchayat in which PW.1 was sent to the house of A.1. Eight months thereafter, on 4.4.1999 all the accused demanded 12 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.30,000/= cash for the purpose of construction the house and so demanding they assaulted P.W.1 and drove her away from the matrimonial abode. (b) On 9.2.2001, at 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 filed Ex.P.1 complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.7 of Salem All Women Police Station who registered a case in Crime No.2/2001 for offences under Section 498A IPC and prepared Ex.P.3 printed FIR. She examined witnesses PWs 2 to 5 and others and recorded their statements. On 18.2.2001 at 7.30 a.m. she arrested A.2 and A.3 and remanded them to judicial custody. A.1, A.4 and A.5 obtained anticipatory bail. Thereafter the Inspector of Police verified the investigation and filed final report against the accused on 8.5.2001 for alleged offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (c) Before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Salem, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined as prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined, nor any document was marked. (c) Before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Salem, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined as prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined, nor any document was marked. When the accused were question under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as against them, the accused denied the same. (d) On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved and hence acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal, P.W.1, wife of A.1 has preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 3. Mr. R. Murali, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the evidence of P.W.1, wife of A.1 has been supported by the evidence of her father, P.W.2, her brother P.W.5 and P.W.6 and also by the Panchayatdars, P.Ws. 3 and 4 and therefore, according to him, the acquittal of the accused is not legally sustainable. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 accused in the case would contend that the accused has filed a belated complaint only for the purpose of preventing another marriage by A.1 and the alleged demand of dowry is false. He would further contend that in revisional jurisdiction, the High Court should not interfere with the findings of the trial court and reappreciate the evidence to come to a contrary conclusion. 5. As far as this case is concerned, the marriage took place on 7.6.1998 and according to Ex.P.1 complaint, the petitioner and A.1 lived together only for two months. Thereafter they did not live together. But the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 at the Police Station only on 9.2.2001. Even in Ex.P.1 Complaint, there is no allegation of demand of dowry by A.1. The purpose of giving Ex.P.1 complaint is to prevent A.1 from remarrying another girl. According to P.W.1, subsequently there was a Panchayat and after the said Panchayat, she lived in her husband's house for few months. Even in Ex.P.1 Complaint, there is no allegation of demand of dowry by A.1. The purpose of giving Ex.P.1 complaint is to prevent A.1 from remarrying another girl. According to P.W.1, subsequently there was a Panchayat and after the said Panchayat, she lived in her husband's house for few months. But P.W.2 and 5 her father and brother would depose that after the Panchayat P.W.1 did not live with her husband's house even for a single day. Therefore, on this score there is a material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 5. P.W.6 is a friend of P.W.5 who is brother of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 and 5 have not spoken that the accused ever beat P.W.1. On the other hand P.W.6, friend of P.W.5 would say that the husband was habitually beating P.W.1, his wife. 6. A.1, the husband has already filed a Petition for divorce which is numbered as FCOP.No.6 of 2002 and the said petition was filed on 5.12.2002. In the absence of any torture as in Ex.P.1, complaint the other allegations are only afterthoughts and therefore, naturally and rightly too, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II,Salem has acquitted the accused. 7. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Guldip Singh, reported in 2005 MLJ (Crl) 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "22. the revisonal court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401, Cr.P.C. Section 401, Cr.P.C is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of an appellate court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of Revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397, Cr.P.C., confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the Case may be, "for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and so to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court". It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers Section 401, Cr.P.C., conferring powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers Section 401, Cr.P.C., conferring powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401, Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercise d as a second appellate court. 23. On this aspect, it is sufficient to refer to an rely on the decision of this Court in Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 , in which it is observed thus:- "The High Court in Revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse." 24. It is necessary to note that in the Case of Duli Chand V. Delhi Administration, the High Court had reappreciated the whole evidence and confirmed the findings of the two courts below. This court, therefore did not interfere with them." 8. Even if the evidence is reappreciated, I do not find that the offences alleged against the accused are proved. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.