JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - E instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2008, passed in Criminal Case No. 3484 of 2007, State Vs. Satish Chandra Joshi, by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short "the Case"). By the impugned judgment and order the respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 409, 428 and 477-A IPC. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the revision are as hereunder:- espondent no.2 was in-charge of fertilizer department in Dakshini Kichha Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short "the Samiti"). On 11.11.1995, PW4 R.S. Chufal took over the charge of Managing Director of the Samiti. On 29.11.1995, a notice was given to the respondent for verification of the stock. But, he did not submit for verification. On 15.03.1996, the charge of In-Charge, Fertilizer Division was removed from respondent no.2. Thereafter, from 29.03.1996, the respondent no.2 absented himself. Due to this reason, the regular verification ending on 31.03.1996 of the stock could not be undertaken. On 17.04.1996, the respondent no.2 was suspended and requests were made to seal the godown. On 05.05.1996, the godown, allegedly under the charge of respondent no.2 were sealed. Subsequently, on 06, 07 and 12.06.1996, the seals of the godown were broken in the presence of PW1 Bharat Lal, the then Naib Tehsildar and other officers of the Samiti. According to the FIR, it was found that the stock that would have been available was not there in the godown. It was short of the worth of Rs.11,29,045.70/-. On 01.07.1996, an FIR was lodged against respondent no.2 by PW2 R.S. Chufal, the then Managing Director of the Samiti. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A IPC was submitted against respondent no.2. Based on it, the proceedings of the case were instituted. On 08.01.1999, the respondent no.2 was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 477-A IPC, to which, the respondent no.2 denied and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PW1 Bharat Lal, PW2 Babu Singh, the former Managing Director of the Samiti, PW3 Pratap Singh, PW4 R.S. Chufal, PW5 Ram Dutt Pandey, PW6 Allauddin, PW7 Dilip Kumar, the Investigating Officer and PW8 Const. Harinandan Joshi, who is the writer of the chik FIR. 4. 3. Prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PW1 Bharat Lal, PW2 Babu Singh, the former Managing Director of the Samiti, PW3 Pratap Singh, PW4 R.S. Chufal, PW5 Ram Dutt Pandey, PW6 Allauddin, PW7 Dilip Kumar, the Investigating Officer and PW8 Const. Harinandan Joshi, who is the writer of the chik FIR. 4. Respondent no.2 was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In defence DW1 Shivaji Katiyar, the then Registrar, Co-operative Societies was examined. After hearing the parties, the learned court below by the impugned judgment and order acquitted respondent no.2 of the charges. Aggrieved by it, the instant revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Samiti would submit that on 05.08.1990, respondent no.2 was given charge of fertilizer Division in the Samiti. On 29.11.1995, he was required to produce and submit for verification of the stock, but he did not abide by the directions issued. Thereafter, he absented himself and the stocks were subsequently verified. It was found short of Rs.11,29,045.70/-. Thereby according to learned counsel for the Samiti offence was committed by the respondent no.2 and it has been proved by the documentary as well as oral evidence of the witnesses. Reference has been made to the statement of PW5 Ram Dutt Pandey, when he says at para no. 2 of his statement that it is based on the charge register and he found that the stock was short of Rs.11,29,045.70/-. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would very vehemently submit that it is a case of harassment of an employee of the Samiti by the senior officers; It is a case of false implication; Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to indicate any illegality, impropriety or any other wrong committed by the learned court below by acquitting the respondent no.2; Learned court below while acquitting the revisionist has dealt with all the arguments and discussed the evidence to arrive at the conclusion, which is lawful and does not warrant any interference. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also referred to the statement of DW1 Shivaji Katiyar, to argue that, in fact, an independent officer of the government had enquired into the case of the Samiti and had exonerated the respondent no.2. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also referred to the statement of DW1 Shivaji Katiyar, to argue that, in fact, an independent officer of the government had enquired into the case of the Samiti and had exonerated the respondent no.2. It is argued that there is no reason to make any interference in the revision and it deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the State would adopt the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 10. This is a revision. The law of revision is well settled that it cannot be treated like an appeal. In revision, the evidence cannot be scrutinized or appreciated de-novo. To the extent of satisfying itself, as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the judgment, the matter has to be seen. Evidence can be looked only if some irrelevant material is considered or relevant matter is not considered or there is some perversity in the appreciation of evidence. 11. There are eight witnesses, who have been examined. The Court need not refer in detail as to what has been stated by those witnesses. Suffice it to say, PW1 Bharat Lal was the then Naib Teheseldar in whose presence, the locks of the godown were broken. PW6 Allauddin, states that he had broken the seals. PW2 Babu Singh, the former Managing Director of the Samiti, states that he had conducted a verification of the stock on 05.10.1995, and found everything correct. According to him he also verified the stock of showroom. The in-charge showroom was a Imtiaz. PW3 Pratap Singh has stated about the appointment of the respondent No.2. According to him, PW4 R.S. Chufal told that stock worth Rs.11,29,045.70/- less was found in the godowns maintained by the Respondent No.2. 12. Pw4 R.S. Chufal is the informant. He has stated about the liability of the respondent no.2. But, he has not stated as to how the liability was fixed. PW5 Ram Dutt Pandey is the person, who says that based on charge register, he fixed the liability of respondent no.2 and on verification found articles worth Rs.11,29,045.70/- missing. 13. But, this witness also could not give details of each and every documents on the basis of which he could say that in the godown maintained by Respondent No. 2 stock was less to the extent of worth Rs.11,29,450.70/-. PW7 Dilip Kumar is the Investigating Office and PW8 Const. 13. But, this witness also could not give details of each and every documents on the basis of which he could say that in the godown maintained by Respondent No. 2 stock was less to the extent of worth Rs.11,29,450.70/-. PW7 Dilip Kumar is the Investigating Office and PW8 Const. Harinandan Joshi is the writer of the chik FIR. 14. Dw1 Shivaji Katiyar, Registrar Co-operative Society at the relevant time, had conducted an enquiry in the matter. According to him, after verification, PW4 R.S. Chufal handed over the charge of the division to Imtiaz. 15. The learned court below has in fact, dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. Various arguments have been raised, which have been dealt with by the learned court below. Delay in lodging of the FIR has been discussed in para no. 15. The enmity part has been discussed in para no. 16. 16. The learned court below also discussed, the following aspects:- If the respondent no.2 was suspended on 15.04.1996, why the godown was sealed after delay on 06.05.1996? Why the respondent no.2 was not informed, when the seal of godown was broken? Who was keeping the second key of the godown? Was it MD? 17. The learned court below in detail discussed other aspects in the matter, especially with regard to the evidence of DW1 Shivaji Katiyar, when he says that the charge of the division was given to Imtiaz. At page no. 21 of the impugned judgment in the last, but one paragraph in last line, the learned court below observed that it is proved that PW4 R.S. Chufal tried to suppress true facts from the Court. 18. As stated, specifically nothing has been indicated by the revisionist as to why and on what aspect the impugned judgement is challenged. On behalf of the revisionist, general arguments have been advanced. What is wrong in the impugned judgement, it is not even indicated. 19. Having considered the submission under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality, impropriety or wrong in the impugned judgment which may require any interference of the Court. Therefore, the revision is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. 20. The revision is dismissed. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be transmitted to the court below for compliance.