JUDGMENT Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397/401 I.P.C. by Revisionist Manish Kashyap against order dated 14.1.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, E.C.Act, Lucknow whereby he has dismissed Appeal No. 0131/14 Manish Kashyap Vs. State of U.P., against conviction and sentence of revisionist passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25, Lucknow under Section 420 I.P.C. for simple imprisonment of three years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-, under Section 467 I.P.C. for simple imprisonment of six years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-, under Section 468 I.P.C. for simple imprisonment of six years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and under Section 471 I.P.C. for simple imprisonment of three years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- 2. Brief facts of the case as deciphered from F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1) are that revisionist-accused had opened Saving Bank Account bearing No. 68003230662 in the Bank of Maharastra, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow on 8.1.2011 by depositing Rs. 1,000/-. At the time of opening the Saving Bank Account, he had submitted photo copy of his driving licence, photo copy of rent agreement executed between him and Sri Rajesh Pandey and photo copy of PAN card dated 5.2.2011. The account was introduced by Sri Avinash Tiwari, who was an account holder in the Bank. The revisionist-accused on 27.12.2011 deposited a cheque Number 189499 of Rs. 9, 78,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad. The cheque was found to be forged, therefore, it was seized by Allahabad branch of State Bank of India. 3. On 28.12.2011, the revisionist-accused came to the Vidhan Sabha Branch of Bank of Maharashtra, Lucknow to enquire about the cheque which he had deposited, on which he was detained by the Bank employees and he was not permitted to go outside the Bank premises. On Search an identity card issued by Oudh Press, Voter Identity Card No. GDTC 235168 dated 30.12.2008 were recovered from his possession, which were bearing his photographs, but the name printed on the above documents was Manish Kashyap son of Arjun Kumar. On Search an identity card issued by Oudh Press, Voter Identity Card No. GDTC 235168 dated 30.12.2008 were recovered from his possession, which were bearing his photographs, but the name printed on the above documents was Manish Kashyap son of Arjun Kumar. Smelling commission of offence of cheating and forgery, Regional Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, Lucknow forwarded revisionist-accused to Police Station Husainganj along with a complaint (Exhibit Ka-01) on which a Case Crime No. 312 of 2011 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Husainganj, Lucknow. 4. Investigation was entrusted to Inspector K.K.Mishra, who visited place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and also recorded statement of witnesses. Having found prima facie case under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. against revisionist-accused, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet in the Court. Cognizance was taken against the revisionist-accused by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Lucknow on the basis of charge-sheet and after summoning accused person charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. were framed against him, which were denied by him and he claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.W.-1 Naveen Kakkarh, P.W.-2 Rekha Gupta, P.W.-3 Krishna Gopal Tiwari, P.W.-4 Dinker Sankpal, P.W.-5 Inspector K.K.Mishra and P.W.-6 Rajesh Pandey. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which accused pleaded himself to be innocent. 6. After appreciation of evidence led by prosecution and hearing submissions of both the parties, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Lucknow convicted the revisionist-accused under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and sentenced him for simple imprisonment of three years and fine to the tune to Rs. 5,000/- under Section 420 I.P.C. failing which he was also ordered to undergo one year simple imprisonment, simple imprisonment of six years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 467 I.P.C. and in default he was remained order undergo to simple imprisonment of one year additional, simple imprisonment of six years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 468 I.P.C. He was also directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one year in case of default of payment of fine and simple imprisonment of three years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 471 and in default one year simple imprisonment. 7. 5,000/- under Section 468 I.P.C. He was also directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one year in case of default of payment of fine and simple imprisonment of three years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 471 and in default one year simple imprisonment. 7. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction revisionist-accused filed criminal appeal No.0131 of 2014 against the judgment dated 7.8.2015, which too was dismissed by the appellate Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and that of appeal revisionist-accused has filed this criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned judgment and orders dated 11.8.2015 and 14.1.2016 are against law and evidence available on record. There are material variations in the statement of witnesses. Prosecution has failed to prove that the documents recovered from the possession of revisionist-accused belonged to revisionist-accused. He has further argued that the investigating officer did not compare the documents with original copies. The Court below pronounced the judgment convicting the revisionist-accused only on the basis of oral evidence of witnesses. None of the employee of the company, which had issued the cheque was examined. He has also argued that revisionist-accused is in Jail since 28.12.2011. He has no criminal history. The revisionist-accused did not derive any benefit from the documents found from his possession. Thus he has argued that the impugned judgment is bad in eye of law, therefore, this criminal revision deserves to be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the Court of Revision cannot enter into questions of fact. Learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to point out any legal infirmity committed by the Court below. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist- accused and learned A.G.A. 11. Before examining the merits of the instant case, I feel it expedient to discuss as to the ambit and scope of the power of High Court under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Court is vested with the power to call for and examine the record of inferior Court for the purposes of satisfying it as to the legality and regularity of any proceeding or order made in the case. The Court of Revision can not sit as Court of Appeal so as to enter into factual aspect of the case. The Court of Revision can not sit as Court of Appeal so as to enter into factual aspect of the case. While discussing the ambit and scope of revisional Court under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra and another 2012 (9) SCC page 460 has observed that follows: "The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely." (Emphasis is supplied by me) 12. Thus the scope of interference by the revisional Court with the judgment is very limited and can be exercised only when there is jurisdictional error or where conclusion has been drawn ignoring material evidence and judicial discretion making decision grossly erroneously. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revision of jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex-facie. 13. In Om Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1995 CRLJ page 3887 Alld also it has been held that : "The revisional power of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is a kind of supervisory jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from the mis-conception of law or irregularity of procedure committed by the subordinate Courts. These two Sections do not confer unfettered jurisdiction on this Court for reappraisal of evidence. In fact, the revisional power of this Court is to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence and the subordinate Courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their powers vested in them under the Code of Criminal Procedure." 14. From the above it is evident that revisional Court has no power to appreciate evidence available on record. From the above it is evident that revisional Court has no power to appreciate evidence available on record. Now adverting to the present case allegations made against the revisionist/accused are that revisionist-accused opened a Saving Bank Account in Bank of Maharashtra, Lucknow on the basis of driving licence, Voter Identity Card and rent agreement, in the name of Harbansh Singh. There is sufficient evidence available on record to show that photographs pasted on account opening form is of revisionist-accused. Revisionist-accused whose real name is Manish Kashyap appeared in the Bank on 28.12.2011 to enquire about clearance of cheque, which he had deposited in the Branch, a day before. There is also evidence that the cheque deposited by him was turned to be forged cheque. The documents recovered from the possession of revisionist-accused clearly show that his name is Manish Kashyap, but he opened the Saving Bank Account on the basis of document, which were later on found to be forged. He wrongly mentioned his name as Harbansh Singh on the account opening form by pasting his own photographs. All these documents clearly indicate the commission of forgery by the revisionist-accused. 15. Thus, I do not find any material irregularity committed by the trial Court in arriving at the conclusion of guilt of revisionist-accused. 16. Hence this revision has no force. 17. Before parting with the judgment, I find it worth mentioning that revisionist-accused has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of six years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- each under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. out of which revisionist-accused has already undergone approximately five years of imprisonment repenting on what he has done. Learned counsel has requested for remission of sentence to the period already undergone. It appears that since the day of arrest on 28.12.2011 revisionist-accused is in Jail and he is about to complete five years of his imprisonment in December, 2016. Revisionist-accused is a young boy of 25 years. He has whole life ahead to pass with stigma on his character and morality. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him for one year more in custody, rather it is in the interest of justice to give him an opportunity to reform himself. Hence keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to reduce his imprisonment under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. from six years to 5 years. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him for one year more in custody, rather it is in the interest of justice to give him an opportunity to reform himself. Hence keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to reduce his imprisonment under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. from six years to 5 years. However, It is made clear that there would be no remission in the quantum of fine. 18. With the above observations, this revision is disposed of accordingly. 19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.