JUDGMENT (1) The petitioner, who was the informant P. W. 8 in S. T. Case No. 12/1/9/ 311 of 96/95/94 has challenged in this revision the legality of judgment and order passed therein by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purl acquitting the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 accused persons of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'I. P. C.') and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act (in short the 'I. E. Act'). Allegation in the case relates to dacoity in the house of P. W. 8 in the night intervening 21/22-01-1994. (2) Prosecution case is that when P. W. 8 with her husband P. W. 9 and their baby son were sleeping inside a room, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 accused persons along with some others entered into their house by forcibly opening the chain of the door by means of knife and three culprits including opposite party accused Gangadhar entered inside the room. The room was lighted by a kerosene lamp. They forcibly took away the gold earrings which P. W. 8 was wearing and also took away a cash of Rs. 20,000/- and some gold ornaments worth of Rs. 1,30,000/- by breaking open a trunk kept inside the room. In course of commission of dacoity, P. W. 9 was caught hold of and assaulted as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries. After commission of dacoity, while leaving, the culprits exploded bombs. Hearing the sound of explosion of bomb, family members of the informant who were sleeping in another house as well as some co- villagers woke up and found opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as well as some other co-accused, some of were known of them, escaping. They chased the culprits but could not apprehend any of them. On the basis of written report Ext. 4 presented by P. W. 8 at Nimapara Police Station, case was registered and S. I. of Police P. W. 11 was entrusted with the investigation. On completion of investigation, C. I. of Police, Nimapara P. W. 13 submitted charge-sheet for commission of offences under Sections 457 and 395 I. P. C. as well as 9 (b) of the I. E. Act against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as well as three co-accused persons who appear to have faced a separate trial. On completion of investigation, C. I. of Police, Nimapara P. W. 13 submitted charge-sheet for commission of offences under Sections 457 and 395 I. P. C. as well as 9 (b) of the I. E. Act against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as well as three co-accused persons who appear to have faced a separate trial. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded complete denial to the charges framed against them for commission of offences under Section 395 of the I. P. C. and 9 (b) of I. E. Act. In order to substantiate the allegations prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. P. Ws. 8, 9, 11 and 13 have already been introduced. P. W. 10 is P. W. 9's brother. P. W. 6 is P. W. 10's daughter. P. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 7 are their co-villagers. P. W. 12 was the J. M. F. C., Nimapara. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are doctors who examined P. W. 10 and accused Rajkishore respectively. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused persons. P. Ws. 4, 5 and 7 did not support the case of the prosecution for which they were declared to be hostile witnesses. Evidence of P. W. 1 also did not incriminate any of the accused persons. On analysis of the evidence of the material witnesses P. Ws. 6, 8, 9 and 10, the learned trial Court found each of them to be unreliable witness and the prosecution case as put forth by them to be doubtful and unacceptable. Accordingly, the prosecution was found to have failed to prove the charges against the accused persons. (3) In assailing the impugned judgment and order it was mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner informant that the learned trial Court should not have disbelieved the evidence of informant P. W. 8 and her husband P. W. 9 implicating the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 with the alleged dacoity. Moreover, their evidence was materially corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 10, and generally by the evidence of other witnesses. In reply, it was contended that the learned Court below rightly refused to accept the testimonies of P. Ws. 8 and 9 as well as P. Ws. 6 and 10 in view of contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and infirmities in their evidence. 6 and 10, and generally by the evidence of other witnesses. In reply, it was contended that the learned Court below rightly refused to accept the testimonies of P. Ws. 8 and 9 as well as P. Ws. 6 and 10 in view of contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and infirmities in their evidence. (4) On close scrutiny of material on record in the background of rival contentions, it is found from the evidence that the informant's family had two houses. The occurrence took place in the old house consisting of two rooms. The old house and newly constructed house were intervened by four houses, one cow shed and a vacant field. The new house was a pucca building whereas the old house was a thatched one. P. W. 8 testified that she along with her husband P. W. 9 and their four months old son were sleeping inside the room in which the occurrence took place, She deposed that at the mid night someone knocked at the door and asked them to open the door shouting that someone had stolen coconuts from their trees. However, she did not open the door as the voice was not that of P. W. 9's brother P. W. 10. Such assertion of P. W. 8 in Court was not consistent with her version in the F. I. R. Ext. 4. In the F. I. R. she alleged that it was accused Gangadhar Mallick and two others, whom she did not know, who came to their courtyard and shouted that there was theft of coconuts. P. W. 8 proceeded to testify that a kerosene lamp was burning inside the house and the door was opened with the help of a knife from outside. In all three persons entered into the room and two of them caught hold of her husband. She could identify accused Gangadhar to be one of the culprits, but could not identify the other two. She alleged that accused Gangadhar, who was armed with knife, threatened her not to shout otherwise he would kill her son. Thereafter, accused Gangadhar demanded her golden earrings which she was wearing. She handed over one earring to accused Gangadhar whereas the other ring was snatched away by him. She alleged that accused Gangadhar, who was armed with knife, threatened her not to shout otherwise he would kill her son. Thereafter, accused Gangadhar demanded her golden earrings which she was wearing. She handed over one earring to accused Gangadhar whereas the other ring was snatched away by him. When P. W. 8 refused to hand over the keys of the boxes, accused Gangadhar broke open three trunks with the help of knife and removed cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- and gold ornaments. It was stated by P. W. 8 that the two culprits who had caught hold of P. W. 9 at the time of occurrence closed his eyes and dealt fist blows causing bleeding injuries. After committing dacoity the culprits fled away with the booty and P. W. 8 deposed to have chased them to the village path on which she could find seven to eight persons including accused Rajkishore standing. Accused persons threw bomb and escaped. P. W. 10 and others came to the spot and thereafter P. W. 8 along with Bhagirathi Swain and Basua Naik, who were not examined as prosecution witnesses, proceeded to the police station. In her examination in chief it was stated by P. W. 8 that she knew accused Gangadhar as he used to visit their house and Rajkishore as he had got a shop in front of their house and that she could identify them from their voice, gesture and posture. Neither in the F. I. R. nor while deposing in Court P. W. 8 mentioned the details of gold ornaments stated to have been stolen. She stated that the stolen ornaments included family ornaments as well as ornaments kept on mortgage. In the F. I. R., P. W.8 did not allege to have chased the culprits or to have seen accused Rajkishore on the village path. Rather, she stated in the F. I. R. that she suspected accused Rajkishore and some other named co-villagers to be involved in the dacoity. It was also stated in the F. I. R. that the value of the stolen ornaments would be Rs. 1,50,000/- approximately. Rather, she stated in the F. I. R. that she suspected accused Rajkishore and some other named co-villagers to be involved in the dacoity. It was also stated in the F. I. R. that the value of the stolen ornaments would be Rs. 1,50,000/- approximately. Thus, on the face of it the evidence of P. W. 8 was an improvement upon her version contained in the F. I. R. So far as implication of accused Rajkishore is concerned, the allegation of suspicion against him made in the F. I. R. got contradicted by her testimony to the effect that accused Rajkishore was among the culprits whom she saw on the village path while chasing the three culprits who had entered into the house. Before scrutinizing the evidence of P. W. 9 it is observed that P. W. 10 stated in his examination in chief that his brother P. W. 9 is an idiot and that on one occasion while chasing the thieves he caught hold of the leg of bull. P. W. 9 also deposed that in the night of occurrence two persons called him from outside and told that there was theft of coconuts from his tree. As he did not open the door the culprits opened the door with the help of a knife. He testified that three persons entered into the room and he could identify accused Gangadhar to be one of them in the light of the lamp burning inside the room. He deposed that accused Gangadhar placed a knife on the neck of their son and demanded valuables. The culprits broke open the boxes and removed articles. Two of the culprits whom he could not identify had tied his eyes with a napkin and closed his mouth with hand before breaking open the boxes and removing the articles. It was specifically stated by P. W. 9 that one of the culprits cut his finger with the help of knife and also assaulted him with kicks and fist blows. Such assertion was supported neither by his wife P. W. 8 nor by P. W. 2 who medically examined him. P. W. 2 testified that he found two bruises one on the face and another on the leg when he examined P. W. 8 on 22-1- 1994. Such assertion was supported neither by his wife P. W. 8 nor by P. W. 2 who medically examined him. P. W. 2 testified that he found two bruises one on the face and another on the leg when he examined P. W. 8 on 22-1- 1994. P. W. 8 testified that the articles were kept in the boxes by his brother and he had no personal idea about the articles. In his cross examination P. W. 9 testified that accused persons Gangadhar as well as Rajkishore used to visit their house and were treated as Gods sons. It was also stated by him that his eyes were closed by the dacoits as soon as they entered into the house and three hours after the occurrence in the house of P. W. 10 he himself opened the napkin tied on his eyes. Such assertion was completely incredible. Evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9 suffered from other inconsistencies also. P.W.8's allegation that one of the gold ring was snatched away and the other one was handed over by herself was not supported by P. W. 9. P. W.8's evidence was to the effect that P. W. 9 was caught hold of and his eyes were closed after the culprits took away her ear rings as well as cash and gold ornaments. Though the entire evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9 regarding identification of accused Gangadhar was dependent upon existence of light of a lamp, no lamp was seized in course of investigation. It is also observed that seizure list Ext. 6 related to seizure of as many as eleven items of gold and silver ornaments and also cash from the broken boxes inside the occurrence house. It was unnatural for the culprits to have left the ornaments. P. W. 10 testified that in the night of occurrence he got up on hearing sound of explosion of bomb. There was explosion of another bomb upon which he came out and found accused Rajkishore coming from the house where dacoity had been committed. His wife went and found that everything had been robbed. Such evidence was not consistent with the contents of seizure list Ext. 6. P. W. 10 deposed regarding seizure of bhujali left by the dacoits in the broken trunk under seizure list Ext. 3. P. Ws. His wife went and found that everything had been robbed. Such evidence was not consistent with the contents of seizure list Ext. 6. P. W. 10 deposed regarding seizure of bhujali left by the dacoits in the broken trunk under seizure list Ext. 3. P. Ws. 8 and 9 did not say any bhujali to be in possession of any of the culprits. Though P. W. 10 stated that some of the stolen ornaments had been kept on mortgage, it was admitted by him that he did not have money lending licence. Though P. W. 10 was stated to have kept the cash and ornaments with P. Ws. 8 and 9, P. W. 10 also did not give the details of stolen ornaments. His assertion to have found accused Rajkishore coming out from the house in which dacoity had taken place also contradicted the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9, who did not allege accused Rajkishore to have entered into the house. On the contrary, P. W. 8 alleged that while chasing three culprits who had entered into the house she found accused Rajkishore and others on the village path. P. W. 10's daughter P. W. 6 deposed that in the night of occurrence hearing her uncle shouting as "CHORA CHORA" she as well as her parents and sisters got up and came out of the house. Neither P. W. 9 himself nor P. Ws. 8 and 10 testified that P. W. 8 raised alarm in course of or after the occurrence. P. W. 10 himself testified that he got up after hearing the sound of bomb explosion. P. W. 6 deposed to have rushed towards their old house along with her family members including P. W. 10 and to have seen accused Rajkishore and Gangadhar as well as two other named accused persons and seven to eight others escaping by running through the village path. She testified that she also chased them upon which they threw a bomb which exploded in front of them. When they returned back, two other bombs were exploded. She testified to have accompanied P. W. 8 to her maternal uncle's house and thereafter to the police Station in the night of occurrence. It does not appeal to reason as to why a young girl like. When they returned back, two other bombs were exploded. She testified to have accompanied P. W. 8 to her maternal uncle's house and thereafter to the police Station in the night of occurrence. It does not appeal to reason as to why a young girl like. P. W. 6 and a woman like P. W. 8 went to the police station in the night of occurrence to lodge report instead of P. W. 10 or his brother P. W. 9. Though, as claimed, P. W. 6 as well as other members of the family chased the culprits and saw as many as four known co- villagers among the culprits, P. W. 10 did not implicate any of the co-villagers except accused Rajkishore. It may also be observed that in case P. Ws. 6, 8, 9 and 10 are believed, accused persons Gangadhar and Rajkishore were not only their co-villagers but also were closely known to them. In such circumstance, the conduct of these two accused persons not taking any precaution to conceal their identity before commission of dacoity was contrary to normal human conduct. The learned trial Court has taken note of all these inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities as well as other circumstances in holding that the four material witnesses were not reliable witnesses. Such conclusion does not appear to be unreasonable. In Jagannath Choudhary and others v. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1181: (2002 Cri LJ 2945) it has been held: "10. While it is true and now well settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodized by analogy and disciplined by system" resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. It is not to be lightly exercised but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284 : 52 Cri LJ 510, Logendranath Jha, AIR 1951 SC 316 : 1951 SCR 676 : 52 Cri LJ 1248 and Chinnaswamy Reddy, AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 8 as also in Thakur Das v. State of M. P. (1978) 1 SCC 27 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 21 : (1978 Cri LJ 1) this Court with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the fac- tum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure of justice there can be said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power. 11. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examined them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications - so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under the provisions of Section 401 is very much circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore." (5) In view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution and legal principle referred to above, there is absolutely no scope to interfere with the impugned judgement and order by involving revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.