JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This petition has been filed against judgment dated 04.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu vide which learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and upheld the order of conviction dated 01.07.2006 passed against the petitioner by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Manali, in Criminal Cases No. 51-1/2004/5-II/2004. 2. Case of the prosecution was that there was a Japanese National by the name of Tsuneaki Fuikvi who was residing in Pritam Guest House at Vashishat, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu in the month of November, 2003, when he went to Japan, he had left behind his two jackets, one walkman, speaker etc. in his room in the Guest House. In his absence, some unknown person committed lurking trespass in the night and committed theft of a bag containing portable Minidise Recorder MZR 55 MD, Walkman digital recording, two speakers, two jackets and two Tshirts belonging to the said Japanes National Mr. Tsuneaki Fulkvi. On this, the matter was reported to the police by the owner of the Guest House, Sh. Pritam Chand, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered. The case was investigated by SI Pritam Chand who visited the spot. The accused was found wearing stolen jacket after some time of the reporting of the matter by the complainant and on the said basis, he was arrested. He made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which was duly recorded and thereafter the accused got recovered the stolen recorder-walkman from a shop which was duly taken into possession. Accused was charged under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution examined three witnesses to substantiate its case. PW-1 Pritam Chand is the owner of the Guest House on whose complaint the FIR was registered. He deposed that the Japanese National was his tenant who had kept his belongings in his room. As per the complainant, on 28.11.2003 he noticed that glass of the window of the room of Japanese National was broken. On suspicion, he went there and found that the valuables of the Japanese National, i.e. walkman, jacket etc. had been stolen and value of which was around Rs.20,000/-. The theft had been committed by breaking glass of the window. Accordingly, he had gone to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. On suspicion, he went there and found that the valuables of the Japanese National, i.e. walkman, jacket etc. had been stolen and value of which was around Rs.20,000/-. The theft had been committed by breaking glass of the window. Accordingly, he had gone to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. He has further stated that accused Naveen Bahadur on 28.11.2003 had gone to Vashisht to take bath where he was apprehended by the police as he was wearing the jacket which had been stolen, which was identified by him. He has further mentioned that the accused made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of the said statement, he got recovered recorder walkman which was seized by the police. 4. PW-2 Iram has also stated that the accused was apprehended with a stolen jacket which was seized and accused recorded his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the basis of which, stolen walkman was seized by the police which was got recovered by the accused himself. He has further mentioned that the said article was identified by the Japanese National. PW-3 SI Pritam Chand has investigated the case on the basis of the material produced on record by the prosecution. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of material produced on record come to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly it convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further ordered that the accused shall in default of payment of fine undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for both the offences. 6. This judgment passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by way of an appeal which was rejected by the learned Appellate Court vide its decision dated 04.07.2008. Learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment passed by the learned trial Court by concluding that the prosecution case had not only proved by the prosecution evidence, but in fact the accused himself had admitted the version of the prosecution in his statement under Section 313 Cr. Learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment passed by the learned trial Court by concluding that the prosecution case had not only proved by the prosecution evidence, but in fact the accused himself had admitted the version of the prosecution in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Learned Appellate Court had thus held that there was no iota of doubt that the accused had stolen these articles from the Guest House of the complainant which belonged to a customer staying in the Guest House. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 8. Ms. Neha Scoot has submitted that the orders of conviction passed against the petitioner by the learned Courts below were bad as the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court below were not based on material on record. According to her, both judgments under challenge were perverse and the same were liable to be quashed and set aside because the prosecution in fact had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ms. Neha has argued that the learned Courts below have heavily relied upon the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. without appreciating that this statement had to be corroborated by the prosecution, however, the prosecution had miserably failed to corroborate the same. According to her, the prosecution has taken benefit of the fact that the accused is an illiterate person. She has further submitted that both the Courts below have erred in not appreciating that there were major contradictions in the statements of PW-1 Pritam Chand and PW-2 Iram and further the statements of these two witnesses did not inspire any confidence. According to her, PW-2 Iram in fact had not supported the case of the prosecution at all. She has further argued that the man whose belongings were allegedly stolen by the accused in fact has not entered in to the witness box and has not deposed at all. This according to her was fatal and the judgments of the learned Courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. She has further contended that a perusal of the statement of PW-1 Pritam Chand will demonstrate that he has made improvements in the same and this aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the learned Courts below. 9. She has further contended that a perusal of the statement of PW-1 Pritam Chand will demonstrate that he has made improvements in the same and this aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the learned Courts below. 9. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there was neither any infirmity nor any perversity in the judgments passed by both Courts below. Mr. Chauhan contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and had successfully brought home the guilt of the accused. As per him, learned trial Court has taken all these aspects of the matter into consideration and thereafter, passed a reasoned judgment while convicting the accused. He submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate her contentions either with regard to the alleged contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution or to the effect that the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was not corroborated by the prosecution. He has further pointed out that in this case, the accused has admitted his guilt and has also recorded disclosure statement, veracity of which has not been impinged by the accused. He further argued that a perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses will demonstrate that there is no suggestion given to them by the defence that the jacket which was recovered from the accused did not belong to Japanese National. Therefore, according to him, there was no scope of interference in the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Courts below in the present revision petition. 10. In my considered view, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court are based on material on record. The findings returned are not based on extraneous material nor it can be said that the findings are not based on the material which was available on record. In the present case, the prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offences alleged against him. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the material on record and they have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the material on record and they have rightly come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgments passed by learned Courts below. It cannot be said that any material provision has been overlooked either by the learned Appellate Court or by the learned trial Court or that there is any perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. 11. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court in revision cannot absence or error on a point of law, re-appreciate evidence and reverse a finding of law. 12. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhury & others, 1992 (4) SCC 305 that the object of the revisional jurisdiction was to confer power upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 665, has again held that Revisional Court can interfere with the findings of lower court where Courts below have overlooked material evidence. 14. Though the power of this Court is as wide as the power of the Appellate Court, yet it will not hear the revision as an appeal and reappraise the evidence and will interfere only in exceptional cases to prevent flagrant miscarriage of justice. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised by this Court to substitute its own view with that of the learned lower Court on a question of fact. Unless the finding of the Court below is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is based on irrelevant evidence or ignoring relevant evidence, it is impermissible to interfere with the order of the learned Court below in revisional jurisdiction. This Court has held in Jaswant Rai Vs. State of H.P., 2000 Cr. Unless the finding of the Court below is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is based on irrelevant evidence or ignoring relevant evidence, it is impermissible to interfere with the order of the learned Court below in revisional jurisdiction. This Court has held in Jaswant Rai Vs. State of H.P., 2000 Cr. L.J. 1970 (1971) (HP) that though the revisional powers of the High Court are very wide, but are purely discretionary and should be exercised only in rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. 15. Thus it can be safely inferred that this Court has to exercise its revisional powers sparingly. Though, this court is not required to act as a Court of appeal, however, at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. However, I do not find any manifest illegality with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below in the present case. 16. As already held above, there is no perversity in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. These judgments have been passed by appreciating all the material on record and the judgments are neither cryptic nor it can be said that the conclusion arrived at are not borne out from the material placed on record by the prosecution. Thus, the revision sans merit and the same is dismissed.