JUDGMENT : Lower court records have been received. 2. The petitioner, who along with his brother and his father faced the trial in G.R. No.54 of 2003 corresponding to T.R. No.434 of 2010, is aggrieved of the judgment dated 11.10.2012 in Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2010 by which the order of conviction in T.R. No.434 of 2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma has been affirmed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2010. 3. Briefly stated, on an allegation that the accused persons have assaulted the complainant and his sister and snatched Rs.500/- from the complainant, a First Information Report was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 28.02.2003 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 IPC. During the trial, three witnesses including the complainant were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Copies of the judgment in C. Case No.329 of 1998 and the appellate order in the criminal revision petitions preferred by the sister of the petitioner and the complainant of this case, and the proceeding in Misc. Case No.13 of 2003 were produced in the proceeding of T.R. No.434 of 2010. The trial court on the basis of the evidences led by the parties came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish case against the accused-Sanjay Kumar and Jagdish Prasad Swarnkar, however, the petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC. By an order of sentence dated 27.04.2010 the petitioner has been extended benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on admonition. 4. The judgment and the order of sentence, both dated 27.04.2010 in T.R. No.434 of 2010 were taken in appeal by the petitioner vide Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2010. His appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11.10.2012. 5. Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on similar set of evidence when two other accused persons have been acquitted of the criminal charges, conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 IPC is illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the courts-below have failed to scrutinize the prosecution's evidence in the light of the fact that the present case was lodged as a counter-blast to the case lodged by the petitioner's sister against the complainant-Surendra Prasad and others. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the courts-below have failed to scrutinize the prosecution's evidence in the light of the fact that the present case was lodged as a counter-blast to the case lodged by the petitioner's sister against the complainant-Surendra Prasad and others. 6. At the outside, it needs to be recorded that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 Cr. P.C., detail re-examination of the evidence is not permissible [refer, “Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288]. From the prosecution's evidence, more particularly, evidence of the complainant-PW 1 and his sister-PW 2 who have specifically alleged assault by the petitioner, in my opinion, both the courts have rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. The appellate court has re-appreciated the evidence and after considering the plea taken on behalf of the appellant has come to a conclusion that the learned Magistrate has rightly found the petitioner guilty for offences under Section 323 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P have extensively referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, however, I do not find any contradiction in the prosecution evidence. 7. On the plea that on the same set of evidence if other co-accused persons have been acquitted the petitioner cannot be convicted, suffice would be to indicate that the Latin phrase “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” widely applied at common law has not been adopted by the courts in India and, in fact, it is the duty of the courts to separate grain from the chaff. On the ground that there is no evidence against the two accused persons, the learned Magistrate has acquitted them from the criminal charges framed against them. In view of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, there is no illegality in convicting the petitioner on the same set of evidence. It is also well-settled that mala-fide of the complainant pales into insignificance when the witnesses have led unimpeachable evidence and, therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, that both the courts-below have not considered the prosecution evidence in right perspective, more particularly, in view of the fact that the present case is a counter-blast to the case filed by the sister of the petitioner, has no merit. 8. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, this criminal revision fails and, accordingly, Cr. Revision No.23 of 2013 is dismissed.