JUDGMENT Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 3.6.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Case Crime No. 436 of 2010 under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Basti in ST No.11 of 2013 by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected. 2. According to the F.I.R., the complainant Ram Raj Mishra is resident of village Keshawpur, police station Parashurampur Basti. On 26.5.2010 he accompanied his son Subhash Mishra on the motorcycle of Shiv Narain Dubey (being Discover No. UP 42 N 5035) was going back to Basti from the court. As soon as the complainant and his son reached Gramin Bank, Mehrajganj at about 10.30, a motor cycle (bearing no. U.P. 51 A 7558) driven by Sanjai Kumar Singh came from behind on which Anand Pandey @ Virendra Pandey & Hanumat Pandey were sitting and stopped the motorcycle of the complainant. Sanjai Kumar Singh asked the other accused to fire at Subhash, who was enmical to the son of the complainant due to thekedari. On this Anand Pandey and Hanumat Pandey, who were holding country made pistols in their hands, fired at Subhash with intention to kill him. The fire hit Subhash, who ran to save his life but again Anand Pandey and Hanumat Pandey fired at Subhash and he fell down. All the three accused thinking the son of the complainant to be dead, leaving their motor cycle, tried to flee away. After the offence, there was hue and cry in public due to which the traffic was jammed. Some brave people from the public caught hold of the miscreants. Meanwhile, two constables reached the spot. This occurrence was witnessed by Ram Kishor Tiwari and Vinod Kumar Mishra. This murder was planned by the enmey of the complainant, namely, Ram Surat Pandey. Accused Ram Surant and the complainant are having enmical terms due to a land dispute. 3. During the course of the trial, the revisionist moved discharge application, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge against which the revisionist has come up in revision. 4. This murder was planned by the enmey of the complainant, namely, Ram Surat Pandey. Accused Ram Surant and the complainant are having enmical terms due to a land dispute. 3. During the course of the trial, the revisionist moved discharge application, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge against which the revisionist has come up in revision. 4. It is settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction is not as wide as the appellate jurisdiction and under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is required to exercise its powers where there is material irregularity or manifest error of law or procedure, or there is misconception or misreading of evidence or where the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction wrongly and perversely or where the facts admitted or proved do not discloses any offence. 5. As a broad proposition, the interference of revisional court may be justified in cases (i) where the decision is grossly erroneous (ii) where there is no compliance with the provision of law (iii) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence on record (iv) where the material evidence of parties has not been considered (v) where the court below has misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record (vi) where the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 6. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction the court may not exercise jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and reappraisal of evidence is not permissible within the revisional jurisdiction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 981 in the case of State of Kerela Vs. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri has held that "the High Court while hearing revision does not work as an appellate court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring mistake is pointed out to show that injustice has been done". 7. In 2003 (1) JIC 958 (SC) : A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 2229 in the case of Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice". Similarly In A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 107 in the case of Munni Devi Vs. Ramayan Singh, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice". Similarly In A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 107 in the case of Munni Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that "while exercising the revisional power the High Court has no authority to re-appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial court and appellate courts are required to do". 8. In another case A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 1126 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that " generally speaking, concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two courts below are not to be interfered with by the High Court in absence of any special circumstances or unless there is any perversity." The learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the dispute is of civil nature, hence, it calls for interfernce under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, the counsel for the revisionists have relied upon a decision rendered in Ram Biraji Devi and another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another, 2006(11) UPCrR 112. 9. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that in the order under revision itself, it has been mentioned that the Investigating Officer made some interpolations in the case diary during investigation, and the site plan and papers filed by the police in the court of C.J.M. were changed after changed after taking cognizance without the permission of the court. Hence, the C.J.M., after getting the matter inquired, filed complaint no. 162/11/12 under Sections 193, 194, 196 I.P.C. and the investigation was handed over to another Investigating Officer. Thus, the argument is that on the basis of interpolated documents, charge could not be framed. 10. A perusal of the record shows that the matter and action taken against the Investigating Officer is a separate matter and unless and until a person is convicted, he cannot be said to have committed the offence. Prima facie, the court found that there was sufficient evidence against the accused. This Court in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (bearing no. Prima facie, the court found that there was sufficient evidence against the accused. This Court in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (bearing no. 18170 of 2013) had given liberty to the revisionist to move an application before the court concerned for alteration of charges, which has been considered by the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has specifically mentioned that the accused is named in the F.I.R., the complainant has supported the F.I.R. version and Ram Kishore and Vinod Kumar Mishra are eye witnesses, who have also supported the written report and the statement of the complainant. 11. In Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.p. and another, 2011 (72) ACC 7870, it has been laid down if there are ingredients of offence against the accused, charges should be framed. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) ACR (SC) P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and another has held that whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At the stage of charge, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground to proceeding against the accused and discharge is the only remedy. Whether the trial would end in conviction or acquittal is absolutely immaterial. 13. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.