JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.A. Singh, J.—This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2000 passed by IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 602 of 2000, (State of U.P. v. Chandra Shekhar), under Sections 419, 420, 409, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Hasayan, District Aligarh by which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No. 1 of charges levelled against him. 2. A perusal of the record goes to show that K.P. Singhal, Branch Manager, Gramin Bank, Mahau, District Aligarh lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Hasayan on 18.1.1992 at 18.20 P.M. with this allegation that Bhagwan Singh, real brother of Rajendra Singh, made a complaint to this effect that accused Chandra Shekhar an officer of the said bank committed embezzlement of amount lying in the Saving Account No. 1185 of his deceased brother Rajendra Singh by putting his forged thumb impression on the cheque, at which he inquired into the matter and found that on 22.11.1991 Chandra Shekhar withdrew a sum of Rs.2733/- from his above saving account by issuing a loose cheque A.W.S.A. No. 745924 and getting thumb impression of someone else thereon and thereafter he closed the said account of the deceased. In fact accused Chandra Shekhar without comparing the photograph of account holder paid the said amount, while Rajendra Singh was not alive on the said date. The said amount of Rs.2733/- was received as debt relief in his account and this fact was known to the bank employees and thus accused Chandra Shekhar with intention to misappropriate the said amount conspired with others and committed embezzlement of the said amount by getting forged thumb impression on the loose cheque issued by him. One Mahesh Babu Sharma, the Clerk of the said bank also helped the accused in this act of forgery and misappropriation. A case under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420, 409 I.P.C. was registered at P.S. Hasayan against Chandra Shekhar and Mahesh Babu Sharma. The police on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against Chandra Shekhar citing Mahesh Babu Sharma as prosecution witness therein. 3. The learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 409, 468, 471 of I.P.C. against accused Chandra Shekhar on 30.3.1999. The police on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against Chandra Shekhar citing Mahesh Babu Sharma as prosecution witness therein. 3. The learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 409, 468, 471 of I.P.C. against accused Chandra Shekhar on 30.3.1999. The prosecution examined P.W.1 K.P. Singhal, P.W. 2 Devendra Kumar, P.W.3 Bhagwan Singh, P.W. 4 Sachendra Kumar, P.W. 5 Mahesh Babu Sharma, P.W. 6 Amar Singh and P.W. 7 S.I. Sumer Singh Dhaka in order to prove the charges against the accused. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and D.W.1 Rajpal Singh and D.W. 2 Ravi Kumar Gupta were examined in his defence. The learned Magistrate did not find accused guilty of charges levelled against him and consequently he acquitted him in the said case vide his judgment and order dated 25.10.2000. 4. I have heard Shri P.K. Rao holding brief of Shri C.B. Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sanjay Vikram Singh holding brief of Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned A.G.A. for the respondent No. 2 on this revision and examined the record. No Government appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and order, however, Aligarh, Gramin Bank has preferred this criminal revision. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned trial Court has acted illegally in discarding the documents filed by the bank from its custody and proved by oral evidence. The learned trial Court has committed illegality in acquitting the accused on the ground that the photo of Rajendra Singh pasted on the specimen card of Rajendra Singh is doubtful document in comparison to the document filed by the officers of the bank at the time of adducing oral evidence. It is further contended that the trial Court has committed factual error by holding that accused has acted faithfully and diligently after comparing the photo on specimen card with the person who has received the payment. It is also contended that the remark given by the trial Court at the time of examination of witness K.P. Singhal on page 14 is not significant in view of the admitted fact that the customer Rajendra Singh was admittedly dead on the date when the money was withdrawn under his forged thumb impression. It is also contended that the remark given by the trial Court at the time of examination of witness K.P. Singhal on page 14 is not significant in view of the admitted fact that the customer Rajendra Singh was admittedly dead on the date when the money was withdrawn under his forged thumb impression. Moreover the trial Court has wrongly drawn an inference for not producing the bundle of daily slips and cheques. It has been wrongly held that the prosecution has been launched against the accused due to his enmity with the employees of the bank. It is further contended that the trial Court has wrongly held that Mahesh Babu Sharma ought to have been tried for the offence and his non prosecution cast doubt on the case of the bank. 6. A perusal of the record of the trial Court goes to show that the learned trial Court has observed in its judgment that accused Chandra Shekhar being second officer in command in the bank used to help in the daily work of branch manager K.P. Singhal. P.W.1 K.P. Singhal admitted in his evidence that accused Chandra Shekhar issued cheque for Rajendra Singh on 22.11.1991 and passed the same for payment and after withdrawing the said amount he closed the said account. P.W. 4 Sachendra Kumar and P.W. 5 Mahesh Babu Sharma in their evidence corroborated prosecution case to this effect that accused knowing this fact that account holder was dead, made payment of the amount without comparing the photograph of account holder Rajendra Singh with photograph of the person, who received payment, but accused Chandra Shekhar stated that he performed his act with full care and caution and in good faith and there was no entry regarding the death of account holder Rajendra Singh in bank record on 22.11.1991 and his death certificate was also not filed in the bank and when the complainant Bhagwan Singh made complaint and then he was asked to submit the death certificate. Thereafter he filed the death certificate of Rajendra Singh. The learned trial Court observed that accused Chadra Shekhar acted in good faith in passing the cheque for payment of the amount lying in the account of Rajendra Singh. 7. Thereafter he filed the death certificate of Rajendra Singh. The learned trial Court observed that accused Chadra Shekhar acted in good faith in passing the cheque for payment of the amount lying in the account of Rajendra Singh. 7. The learned trial Court has recorded findings to this effect that accused Chandra Shekhar has complied with normal practice and procedure of the bank in passing the said cheque in good faith as the prosecution could not file original specimen card of the deceased in order to prove allegations against the accused. The photo copy of the specimen card was filed and photo of the deceased was not found pasted thereon. The learned trial Court observed that some manipulation was made in the specimen card and photo as the same was removed from specimen card and it was punched on reverse side of the said card. The learned trial Court further observed that accused got the account holder identified by Amar Singh, another account holder on said cheque. It was further observed by the trial Court that prosecution did not produce original record of the bank, in absence of which the photo copies of the record could not be proved in accordance with the provisions of law. The prosecution witness Amar Singh in his statement admitted his signature on the back of disputed cheque with regard to his identification. The learned Court below further observed that entire evidence on record was sufficient to establish that accused Chandra Shekhar complied with the rules and procedure in passing the cheque in good faith. The Court below also found the role and testimony of P.W. 3 Bhagwan Singh, P.W. 4 Sachendra Kuamr Cashier and P.W. 5 Mahesh Babu Sharma Counter Clerk to be doubtful because in first information report the name of Mahesh Babu Sharma was mentioned as accused but during investigation no charge-sheet was submitted against him and he was cited as prosecution witness. 8. The learned Court below also found the acts of the prosecution witnesses full of suspicion and further observed that in order to implicate the accused in this case all prosecution witnesses conspired with each other. 8. The learned Court below also found the acts of the prosecution witnesses full of suspicion and further observed that in order to implicate the accused in this case all prosecution witnesses conspired with each other. The trial Court found the entire prosecution case to be doubtful and unreliable, as the investigating officer did not take the record of the bank relating to this case in his possession and the employees of the bank manipulated the record in order to escape their liability and falsely implicate the accused in this case and thus prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court also observed that the accused being an officer of the bank could not commit embezzlement of meagre amount of only Rs.2733/-. It was also held that prosecution witness Mahesh Babu Sharma admitted this fact that some dispute had arisen between them with regard to sale of scooter. The learned Court below observed that due to this reason he appeared as witness against the accused and made false statement in this case. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently contended that the revisional powers of this Court are discretionary and are exercised for the ends of justice, but there are three limitations in this regard: Firstly, no order can be made to the prejudice of the accused or any person, unless he had an opportunity of being heard personally or by a pleader in his own defence; Secondly, it cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction; and Thirdly, no revision can be entertained at the instance of a party who could have appealed under the Code and has not appealed. 10. It has further been contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court even suo motu whenever it is essential to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior Court. In the present case no discrepancy or illegality in the conduct of trial vitiating the same has been pointed out. I am of the view that there is no scope for using revisional jurisdiction against the finding recorded by the Court below. In the present case no discrepancy or illegality in the conduct of trial vitiating the same has been pointed out. I am of the view that there is no scope for using revisional jurisdiction against the finding recorded by the Court below. Even on a re-appreciation of evidence there is no possibility to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Court below and hence there is no scope whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In this case the learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to establish that there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. This Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. The jurisdiction of revision is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised for correcting miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice, which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 12. The revisional Court may in an appropriate case exercise the powers available to a Court of Appeal in a proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure because of Sections 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the only limitation is that before exercising such powers it must appear to the Court that there is a manifest error of law and failure of justice apparent on the face of record. No proceedings by way of revision can be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. There is no specific or express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribing the right of preferring an appeal at the instance of the complainant. 13. In view of sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. nothing shall be deemed to authorize this Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In the present case the revisionist could file an appeal, but no appeal was filed and he preferred this revision. 13. In view of sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. nothing shall be deemed to authorize this Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In the present case the revisionist could file an appeal, but no appeal was filed and he preferred this revision. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very much limited, when the revision is not filed by the State but has been filed by the aggrieved party. Unless and until it is shown that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused or directing re-trial of the accused by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Thus the scope of interference in the judgment of acquittal by way of revision at the instance of a private party is very much limited. The finding recorded by the trial Court may be erroneous to some extent but unless it is shown that such finding is perverse or contrary to the recorded facts, no interference can be made in the criminal revision at the instance of a private party. 14. In the present case it has been found that the learned trial Court has recorded categorical findings to this effect that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges on the basis of evidence on record against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus no reliance has been placed on prosecution story. In view of above legal position this Court cannot interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court because the learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to show that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the facts and evidence on record. The learned trial Court has also recorded the findings to this effect that the accused has acted in good faith in passing cheque for payment, and no mal afide intention on his behalf has been found. Moreover, this case relates to the occurrence of the year 1991 and the amount allegedly embezzled by the accused is meagre one. The learned trial Court has also recorded the findings to this effect that the accused has acted in good faith in passing cheque for payment, and no mal afide intention on his behalf has been found. Moreover, this case relates to the occurrence of the year 1991 and the amount allegedly embezzled by the accused is meagre one. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order passed by trial Court and record different finding on the same evidence which has been recorded and analysed by the Court below. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court in this case because the same cannot be said to be perverse. The trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in conducting the trial of the accused and scrutinizing the evidence on record. Consequently this revision fails and is dismissed. —————