JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as the ''accused'') aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 2.2.2007 and affirmed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. on 12.10.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007, has filed the instant revision petition. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Rakesh Kumar recorded his statement before the Police Station, Hamirpur stating therein that on 5.2.2005 he was serving as Conductor in H.R.T.C. and was on duty with bus bearing registration No. HP-24A-0643, which was coming from Dharamshala to Bilaspur and was being driven by Nikru Ram, PW-2 also employed with the H.R.T.C. When the bus reached Hamirpur Bus-stand at about 4.50 p.m., the driver of the bus wanted to park the bus at the counter of the bus-stand, however, a private bus bearing registration No. HP-67-7524 Green Line Travellers, was parked there. He requested the petitioner, being the driver of the aforesaid bus to move the bus in order to enable the driver of the H.R.T.C. bus to park the vehicle at the counter of the bus-stand. However, instead of moving the bus, the accused first abused the complainant and thereafter started beating him with his hands, leg and gave fist blows, as a result of which, he received some latent injuries on the left side of his nose, lips and on the knee of his left leg and injuries on his head. This occurrence was witnessed by Nikru Ram, the driver of the H.R.T.C. bus and other persons present there. It was reported that the accused being the driver of private bus No. HP-67-7524 obstructed the complainant from discharging his official duties as Conductor and also gave beatings to him. Upon this information, the FIR, Ex.PW-9/A was recorded at about 5.30 p.m. The complainant was medically examined at District Hospital, Hamirpur and MLC Ex.PW-8/A was obtained. The case was investigated by ASI Ramesh Chand, who after inspecting the spot, prepared site plan Ex.PW-9/B. He also procured the appointment order Ex.PW-7/A, certificate Ex.PW-7/B and copy of duty register Ex.PW-6/A from the H.R.T.C. to show that the complainant was the employee of H.R.T.C. and was working as Conductor at the relevant time. The case was investigated by ASI Ramesh Chand, who after inspecting the spot, prepared site plan Ex.PW-9/B. He also procured the appointment order Ex.PW-7/A, certificate Ex.PW-7/B and copy of duty register Ex.PW-6/A from the H.R.T.C. to show that the complainant was the employee of H.R.T.C. and was working as Conductor at the relevant time. He also procured a certificate Ex.PW-4/A from Naresh Kumar, being the owner of the private bus No. HP-67-7524 to show that the accused was appointed as driver of his bus by him. After having made out a case under Sections 353, 332, 504 IPC against the accused, the challan was presented before the Court. 3. On appearance before the trial Court, the copies of challan and statements of the witnesses as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused. After having afforded an opportunity of being heard, the accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as ten witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied all allegations made against him. The accused expressed his desire to lead defence evidence, consequently thereof, one DW Surinder Kumar was examined by the accused. 5. After having examined the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. The accused was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, which too came to be dismissed vide its judgment dated 12.10.2007. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, which too came to be dismissed vide its judgment dated 12.10.2007. 7. It is against both the judgments passed by the learned Courts below that the petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the instant revision petition by contending that the findings as recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and, therefore, the judgments of conviction and sentence as passed by them, should be set-aside and the petitioner be honourably acquitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 8. However, before I deal with the contentions put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to delineate the scope and power of this Court while dealing with revision petition of the instant kind. 9. In Amur Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose and another , (1973) AIR(Supreme Court) 799, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 10. In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu , (1979) AIR(Supreme Court) 663, the Hon''ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram , (1973) AIR(Supreme Court) 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system". 11. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad , (1986) AIR(Supreme Court) 1436, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 12. 11. In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad , (1986) AIR(Supreme Court) 1436, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 12. In Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh , (1986) AIR(Supreme Court) 1721, the legal position regarding scope of revisional jurisdiction was summed up by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the following terms: "It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the accused. Even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope." 13. In Ramu @ Ram Kumar vs. Jagannath , (1994) AIR(Supreme Court) 26, Hon''ble Supreme court cautioned the revisional Courts not to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant. 14. In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu , (1993) AIR(Supreme Court) 1126 (SC) , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. 15. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath , (1994) AIR(Supreme Court) 26, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint." 16. 15. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath , (1994) AIR(Supreme Court) 26, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint." 16. In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another , (1997) AIR(Supreme Court) 2485 (SC) , the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , (1962) AIR(Supreme Court) 1788 ; Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh , (1968) AIR(Supreme Court) 707; P.N. G. Raju vs. B.P. Appadu , (1975) AIR(Supreme Court) 1854, and Ayodhya vs. Ram Sumer Singh , (1981) AIR(Supreme Court) 1415 and held that revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice". 17. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , (1999) 2 SCC 452 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "In Its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice." 18. In State of A.P. vs. Rajagopala Rao , (2000) 10 SCC 338 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under: "The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment." 19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law and restricted scope of revisional jurisdiction, I have proceeded to analyze in brief the evidence available on record. 20. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the prosecution had examined ten witnesses, out of whom, four were the eye witnesses and whose presence at the scene of occurrence can neither be doubted nor questioned and has been duly established on record. These witnesses are PW-1 Rakesh Kumar, injured, PW-2 Nikru Ram, driver of H.R.T.C. bus, PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, being Conductor of bus No. HP-22-0372 that was parked at the place of occurrence and PW-10 Ram Dass, who was the passenger in the H.R.T.C. bus. All the four eye witnesses have duly supported and corroborated the prosecution case. 21. The complainant Rakesh Kumar, while appearing as PW-1 proved on record FIR Ex.PW-9/A. He stated that on 5.2.2005, he was on duty as Conductor in H.R.T.C. bus No. HP-24A-0643 which was coming from Dharamshala to Bilaspur. At about 4.50 p.m., the bus reached Hamirpur bus-stand, where the other private bus bearing registration No. HP-67-7524 was parked. He requested the petitioner, being the driver of the bus, to move the bus in order to allow the H.R.T.C. bus to be parked at the proper counter as the bus was to depart to Bilaspur shortly, but the petitioner instead of acceding to his request got down from his bus and abused him and thereafter slapped him. At that time, Nikru Ram, driver of H.R.T.C. bus was also present and other persons were gathered there. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police vide Ex.PW-1/A. Even though he was cross-examined, but nothing material could be elicited therefrom. 22. Pw-2 Nikru Ram, is the driver of H.R.T.C. bus, who had witnessed the entire incident. He also stated that petitioner gave beatings to PW-1 and he alongwith other persons saved the complainant from the petitioner. He identified the petitioner in the Court. He further stated that it was not the time of departure of the private bus, but he had simply parked it there. He also stated that petitioner gave beatings to PW-1 and he alongwith other persons saved the complainant from the petitioner. He identified the petitioner in the Court. He further stated that it was not the time of departure of the private bus, but he had simply parked it there. The version putforth by PW-1 and PW-2 is further supported and corroborated by PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, who was present at bus-stand being Conductor of bus No. HP-22-0372. He stated that the petitioner gave beatings to the complainant. In cross-examination, this witness denied that it was the complainant who had given beatings to the petitioner. 23. As observed earlier, the case of the prosecution is further supported by PW-10 Ram Pal, who was a passenger in the H.R.T.C. bus. He stated that the petitioner got down from his bus and gave 2 - 3 slaps to the complainant. He identified the petitioner in the Court. Even this witness was cross-examined, but nothing material could be elicited therefrom so as to cast even a remotest doubt in the prosecution story. 24. At this stage, it is vehemently argued by Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner that even if it is assumed that the complainant was given beatings by the petitioner, even then, there is nothing on record to prove that the complainant at the relevant time was discharging his official duties. He would refer to entry No.61 of the duty register Ex.PW-6/A, to contend that the bus being driven by Nikru Ram in which the complainant was the Conductor, was in fact scheduled to arrive from Dharamshala at 8.25 p.m. and thereafter proceed to Bilaspur and, therefore, if the complainant and Nikru Ram of their own have chosen to drive the bus and reach Hamirpur before scheduled time, then obviously they cannot be said to be discharging the official duties and it was the timing of the bus being driven by the petitioner. Therefore, the complainant had no right to interfere in the petitioner''s performance of duty. Even though, the arguments may sound attractive, but there is no merit in the same for the simple reason that the duty register Ex. Therefore, the complainant had no right to interfere in the petitioner''s performance of duty. Even though, the arguments may sound attractive, but there is no merit in the same for the simple reason that the duty register Ex. PW-6/A has been prepared by the Adda Incharge at Bilaspur which shows the entry of the bus arrival at Bilaspur of the route Dharamshala to Bilaspur and does not display the timings of the bus when it was to start from Dharamshala as urged by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel is based upon complete mis-reading of the duty register Ex.PW-6/A 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no fault can be found with the judgments of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Courts below. 26. At this stage, it is vehemently urged by Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that taking into consideration the fact that incident took place as far as back on 5.2.2005 i.e. more than 13 years, a lenient view in the matter be taken and he be released on probation. 27. Similar request was made before the learned trial Magistrate, however, the same was declined in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Siyasaran vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (1995) CriLJ 2126, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case under Sections 333 and 506 Part II of IPC, refused to grant probation only on the ground that the accused/appellant therein had settled in life by taking employment in some Gramin Bank. Nonetheless, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the occurrence herein took place more than 13 years ago and the Hon''ble Supreme Court itself in Siyasaran''s case had reduced the sentence of imprisonment under both the counts, to the period already undergone, but had increased the fine to Rs. 50, 000/- to be paid to the victim as compensation. 28. Therefore, taking cue from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be subserved in case the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, but the sentence is modified to the one already undergone by the petitioner and instead of payment of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, as directed by the learned trial Magistrate, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, as directed by the learned trial Magistrate, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- which fine under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. shall be paid as compensation to the victim Rakesh Kumar. Ordered accordingly. 29. The payment be deposited before the learned trial Court on or before 31st July, 2018 for being paid over to the victim Rakesh Kumar. In the event of deposit, it shall be the duty of the trial Court to locate the victim Rakesh Kumar, most expeditiously so that he can obtain the compensation. In case there is failure to pay the aforesaid amount within the time allotted then the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court and as affirmed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur and further affirmed by this Court, under both the counts, shall sustain. 30. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) , if any.