1. The instant criminal revision petition is directed under section 397 read with section 401, Cr.PC against the judgment and order dated 10.4.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, court No.3 in a complaint case bearing C.R. No.681 of 1999 and against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in Crl. Appeal No.22(2) of 2002. 2. Heard learned counsel appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate, who submitted that from the complaint petition before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate as well as from the evidence of different witnesses on record, no where it came that the torture, alleged by the complainant, is the outcome of demanding dowry. The learned trial court as well as the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper context and without any reason, convicted the accused under section 498A though the ingredients of section 498A is not available in the evidence of different witnesses. He also further submitted that even the cruelty has not been established against the petitioner; therefore, this revision petition may be allowed and both the judgment and orders dated 10.4.2002 and 23.3.2004 may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appeared for and on behalf of the respondent No.2, Mr. M. Nath, senior advocate assisted by Mr. D.C. Roy, advocate, submitted that this court, sitting as revisional court, has no power to re-appreciate the concurrent findings of both the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. The learned senior counsel also, further, submitted that prosecution evidence has established the demand of dowry and cruelty against the respondent No.2 and as such no interference is wanted in this present revision petition and the same may be dismissed. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on the following decisions: (i) S.P.S. Jayam and Co. v. Nehrusadan andAnr., 1977 Crl. LJ 1101 (SC); (ii) Thoudam Abenjao Singh v. Moirangthem Ningol Leirensana Devi, 1977 Crl. LJ (NOC) 210 (Gau.); (iii) Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC121; (iv) State of Haryana v. Wazir Chand and Anr., AIR 1989 SC 3 78; (v) Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 ; (vi) P. Bikshapathi and Ors. v State of A.P., 1989 Crl. LJ 1186; and (vii) G. V.N.. LJ (NOC) 210 (Gau.); (iii) Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC121; (iv) State of Haryana v. Wazir Chand and Anr., AIR 1989 SC 3 78; (v) Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 ; (vi) P. Bikshapathi and Ors. v State of A.P., 1989 Crl. LJ 1186; and (vii) G. V.N.. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli, AIR 2002 SC 576 . 4. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. R.C. Debnath, Spl. P.P. has also endorsed the submissions forwarded by the learned senior counsel appeared for and on behalf of the respondent No.2, Mr. M. Nath, senior Advocate. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate also in counter reply submitted that, in this instant case provisions of section 468 sub-section (2) clause (c) of the Cr.PC is attracted because the last date of demand of the dowry was in the year 1990 and complaint was lodged in the year 2000, where court has no power to take cognizance in terms of the said section. 6. The facts of the case in nut shell are that the petitioner got married with the respondent No.2 in December 1988 and out of the said wedlock, 2(two) daughters were born in the month of January 1992 and May 1994. Initially both the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were living peacefully as husband and wife in the residential house of the petitioner's parents; however, the relationship between them started strained and unhealthy after one and half years of their marriage. After 3(three) years of the marriage, they were removed from the house of the petitioner's parent and, therefore, they were living in a rented house. Petitioner has always created problem to their conjugal lives and he often used to return home after being intoxicated and he assaulted the complainant, on different occasions. One night also, petitioner returned home with intoxicated mood and assaulted the complainant with abusive words stating that at the time of marriage scooter was not given and for which he asked her to bring some money, from her parents to purchase Scooter, but it could not be fulfilled as a result of which the complainant was beaten severely physically on different occasions. In 2004, on an occasion also, the petitioner pushed down the complainant in the drain and local people rescued her. In 2004, on an occasion also, the petitioner pushed down the complainant in the drain and local people rescued her. Lastly, complainant having no means, to protect her life with her two beloved daughters lodged complaint with the police about the torture caused to her by the petitioner. 7. After giving my anxious thought to the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar as well as going through the lower court case records, both trial court as well as Appellate Court, I am of the considered view that this revisional court has limited power and scope and unable to appreciate the evidence afresh. It is settled principle of law that revisional court cannot appreciate or re-appreciate evidence and set aside findings of fact of the trial court and substitute its own findings. In the case of Thoudam Abenjao Singh (supra), this court was pleased to observe that, "[T]he revisional powers and jurisdiction of court cannot be equated with appellate powers and jurisdiction and the revisional court cannot appreciate or re-appreciate evidence and set aside findings of fact of the trial court and substitute its own findings if it merely differs from the trial court's view and only in extreme cases the revisional court can set aside the findings of fact when they are based on mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or misappreciation of evidence tentamounting to perversity or cannot be supported by any logic or when they are based on errors of law." 8. On careful reading of the evidence available on the lower court case records as well as the judgment dated 23.3.2004 delivered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala, I do not find any reason to record that it is a case where evidence has been misappreciated or cannot be supported by any logic or based on errors of law as such I Am not inclined to make further analysis of the evidence as law laid down by the judgment, discussed above, does not permit to do so. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani (supra), para 18, was pleased to observe that, "[Blearing in mind the proper approach to matrimonial offence, we are satisfied that the facts and circumstances brought out by the appellant in this case do justify an inference that there was a demand for dowry. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani (supra), para 18, was pleased to observe that, "[Blearing in mind the proper approach to matrimonial offence, we are satisfied that the facts and circumstances brought out by the appellant in this case do justify an inference that there was a demand for dowry. The demand for dowry is prohibited under law. That by itself is bad enough. That in our opinion amounts to cruelty entitling the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage." From the evidence on records as recorded by the trial court below, I find that there are sufficient materials to justify the cruelty caused to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner and demand of dowry. 10. Further discussions of section 468 is not required as it has been answered by the Appellate Court in its judgment and order dated 23.3.2004 in the operative part. 11. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Registry is directed to return lower court records immediately along with copy of this judgment and order. 13. If the petitioner/convict is on bail, he has to surrender before the trial court and to undergo the sentence as decided and passed by the learned trial court. _____________