JUDGMENT : The instant criminal revision application has been taken out by a person who was initially accused and subsequently convicted by the learned trial Court along with another person for being guilty of offence punishable under section 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code. In appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, the conviction under section 354 was upheld but was set aside in respect of section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: A girl by the name of Rubina, who is a student of Government Senior Secondary School, Pahalgaon, under Mayabunder Police Station, came home during lunch break along with another student named Priya and stated to her mother that one teacher Anil Kumar Dhali and another Badal Paul (being the petitioner herein) often engaged themselves in doing misdeeds with girl students of class VIII of the school. The mother of Rubina, at the time of lodging the police complaint stated, inter alia, that Anil Kumar Dhali (the other accused person) had misbehaved with her daughter (Rubina) by making her daughter sit on his lap and pressed her chest, as a result of which her daughter got scared and narrated her everything. Her daughter told her that she would not go to that particular teacher for taking books from him. She also stated to her mother that Anil Kumar Dhali and Badal Paul were always doing such type of activities with girl students and also threatened to kill them if they disclosed the matter to anybody. 3. In her police complaint, Rubina’s mother also stated that her daughter had told her that such type of incidences also happened with her classmates and gave the names of those classmates. After listening to her daughter s complaint, she went to meet the classmates of her daughter. All of them told her that the said two teachers made them sit on their lap, put their hands on the girls chest, cheek and back and after putting their hands on their waist, tickled them. Upon listening to the version of the girl students, she went to the Principal of the school and narrated everything about the incident. All of them told her that the said two teachers made them sit on their lap, put their hands on the girls chest, cheek and back and after putting their hands on their waist, tickled them. Upon listening to the version of the girl students, she went to the Principal of the school and narrated everything about the incident. When the Principal called the concerned girl students and inquired from them about the incident, all of them clearly divulged everything to the Principal about the misdeeds committed by Anil Kumar Dhali and Badal Paul. After listening to everything, the Principal stated to her that he had made the two teachers understand and that they would not commit such type of mistake for the second time. The complainant was not satisfied with the decision taken by the Principal and as such, she went to the police station along with her daughter Rubina and also brought two girls, namely, Erika Sobha Xaxa and Manisha to file the complaint against the accused persons and prayed for taking necessary action against them. 4. On the basis of the written complaint, an FIR was lodged against both the accused under section 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No.113/09 dated 7th August, 2009 and a criminal case was instituted against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against both the accused under section 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The matter, thereafter, went on trial before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mayabunder, North and Middle Andaman, who, vide his judgment dated 11th September, 2012, held both the accused persons, namely, Anil Kumar Dhali and Badal Paul, guilty of offences punishable under section 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-; in default, one month s imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced both of them to suffer six months simple imprisonment for offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment was to run concurrently for both the offences. If the fine amount was paid, then 50% of that amount was to be paid to the victim girls as compensation. 6. The sentence of imprisonment was to run concurrently for both the offences. If the fine amount was paid, then 50% of that amount was to be paid to the victim girls as compensation. 6. The judgment of the learned trial Court was carried in appeal by the petitioner herein before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, in Criminal Appeal No.001 of 2014. The appeal was heard at length and by a judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2014, it was held by the learned Appellate Court, inter alia, that it agreed with the findings of the learned trial Court regarding conviction under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, the learned Appellate Court observed that it was not proved by the prosecution and therefore, the accused (being the petitioner herein) was not liable to be convicted under the said provision of law. The learned Appellate Court, however, modified the sentence handed out by the learned trial Court to the petitioner herein by allowing him to be released on probation of good conduct and character under the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. Now, in the present application under section 397/401, read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that neither the learned trial Court nor the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that several persons who were material witnesses were left out and were neither examined by the police nor cited as witnesses. It is specifically submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Principal of the educational institution was a very vital and relevant witness in the case, but was not examined. Similarly, the boy students of the educational institution were left out even though they were all vital and relevant witnesses in the case. He referred to section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that the learned Court below had failed to understand its true scope and also failed to take into consideration that the learned trial Court never summoned the material witnesses or examined them, even though it had power to do so, suo motu, under the said provision of law. 8. 8. In this context, he relied on two judgments of this Court, one by a Division Bench and another by a single Bench, which are as follows: (i) 2010 (4) CHN (Cal) 138 (State of West Bengal v. Ajoy Dutta & Anr.) (ii) 2011 (4) CHN (Cal) 777 (Rajesh Agarwal v. State of West Bengal). 9. In reply, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that what the petitioner is actually seeking is re-appraisal of evidence, which, this Court, sitting in its revisional jurisdiction, ought not to embark upon, since its function is essentially supervisory and restricted in nature. He further submitted that all materials on record as well as relevant witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court in order to come to a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner Badal Kumar Paul as well as Anil Kumar Dhali were both guilty of having committed offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the petitioner herein was concerned, the learned Appellate Court has given him benefit of doubt in respect of his conviction under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was extremely lenient towards him by modifying the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and releasing him on probation of good conduct and character under the Probation of Offenders Act. He also submitted that in India out of large number of cases of child sexual abuse, very few cases of child sexual abuse are reported to the police. Even fewer cases are brought under trial because of social taboo and passive attitude of the parents as they feel that future of their child was at stake and these are matters which bring disgrace to the reputation of the family. It is often found that the head of institution or those persons responsible, sometime lack expertise to deal with such cases at administrative levels. It is not expected that all cases of child sexual abuse will be filed in Court and cases will be brought under trial. Even approaching the Court or police, by minor children who are students and then fighting a legal battle against their own teachers, is certainly not an easy task, unless any mature or major person supported them, which, in the facts of the instant case was done so by the de facto complainant. Even approaching the Court or police, by minor children who are students and then fighting a legal battle against their own teachers, is certainly not an easy task, unless any mature or major person supported them, which, in the facts of the instant case was done so by the de facto complainant. He lastly submitted that in view of the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the revisional power of the High Court cannot be invoked by the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. (i) (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 649 : (1975 Cri LJ 1732) (Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration). (ii) 1993 Cri LJ (Supreme Court) 1029 (State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale and others). (iii) (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 659 : (2004 Cri LJ 4254) (State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others). 10. After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the judgment and order of the learned trial Court and that of the learned Appellate Court, this Court finds that the only issue which falls for consideration is whether the learned trial Court had failed to invoke section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, suo motu, thereby causing injustice to the case. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is set out here-in-below: ‘311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.’ 11. A bare reading of the said provision of law reveals that the Court s power to summon material witness or examine any person present is only for the purpose of examining or recalling or re-examining such person, if his evidence appears to be essential to the ‘just decision of the case’. 12. In the instant case, a careful study and analysis of the judgment of the learned trial Court reveals that all material witnesses were duly examined in order to come to a just decision. 12. In the instant case, a careful study and analysis of the judgment of the learned trial Court reveals that all material witnesses were duly examined in order to come to a just decision. Whether or not the Principal or the boy students of the educational institution were material witnesses was a matter which was entirely within the domain of the learned trial Court. If the learned trial Court would have considered it essential to invoke its suo motu power under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon and examine any person, it would have certainly done so only if his evidence appeared to be essential to the ‘just decision of the case’. However, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that not summoning the Principal or the boy students for suo motu examination by the learned trial Court was fatal to the final outcome of the trial. ‘Just decision of the case’ was rendered by the learned trial Court without exercising its power under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, suo motu. What is of significance is that nothing prevented the petitioner being one of the accused to bring the Principal or the boy students of the educational institution to the witness box. Having chosen not to bring them as witnesses before the learned trial Court, it is not open to the petitioner to now contend before this revisional Court that the learned trial Court had failed to exercise its powers under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, suo motu. This is purely an afterthought exercise. 13. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner is essentially a broad discussion with regard to the scope of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law as laid down therein. The other judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court also provides certain insight with regard to the power of the Court under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, its ratio is quite inapplicable in the facts of the instant case. 14. The other judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court also provides certain insight with regard to the power of the Court under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, its ratio is quite inapplicable in the facts of the instant case. 14. In the facts of the instant case, for reasons stated above, it cannot be held that the learned trial Court did not summon material witnesses, since it is revealed from the learned trial Court s judgment itself that it had examined not one but several material witnesses and analysed such evidence which appeared to it to be essential for a ‘just decision of the case’. It is, therefore, quite evident that in the garb of a revisional application, the petitioner is essentially seeking to prise open the case once again right from the trial stage and asking it to re-apprise evidence, which is simply impermissible. 15. In Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975 Cri LJ 1732) (supra), the Supreme Court has observed, inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revisional application is virtually restricted and it cannot embark upon reappreciation of evidence. It was further observed that the High Court, in revision, was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. 16. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale and others, (1993 Cri LJ 1029) (supra), the aforesaid proposition of law was reiterated by the Supreme Court, while it went on to observe that ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding and re-appreciate the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. 17. In State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others, (2004 Cri LJ 4254) (supra), the Supreme Court has a word of caution for the High Court sitting in its revisional jurisdiction. It has been observed, inter alia, that : ‘Section 401, Cr PC 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. It has been observed, inter alia, that : ‘Section 401, Cr PC 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. It is for the purpose, as set out in Section 397, that if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401, CrPC 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 PC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. The High Court is required to exercise self-restraint in a revision under Section 397.’ 18. In the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred above and for reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any reason to invoke its revisional jurisdiction to upset the conclusions arrived at, by both the learned Courts below. 19. The revisional application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.