Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 959 (JHR)

Lileshwar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-10-05

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2020
ORDER : 1. Through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh alongwith Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in both the cases. 3. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha as well as Ms. Priya Shrestha, leaned counsels appearing on behalf of opposite party-State in Cr. Revision No. 966 of 2014 and Cr. Revision No. 210 of 2015 respectively. 4. These two criminal revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 04.09.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2007 by learned District and Sessions Judge, Latehar upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.05.2007 passed against the present petitioners in G.R. Case No. 238 of 2004 corresponding to T.R. No. 386 of 2007. The petitioners were convicted by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Latehar under Section 25(1-B) (a), 35 of Arms Act and Section 26/35 of Arms Act and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each under Section 25(1-B)(a), 35 of Arms Act and also under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 500/- each has been imposed. It has been further directed that in default of payment of fine, the petitioners will have to undergo further imprisonment of 15 days. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Arguments of the petitioner 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 25(1-B) (a)/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each under the aforesaid sections. He submits that both the petitioners are full brothers and it is further not in dispute that case of both the petitioners are on similar footing. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while advancing his arguments, submits that the arms were recovered from the house of the petitioners and this fact alone was not sufficient to convict the petitioners as the petitioners were residing with their family members and recovery cannot be imputed only to the petitioners. He has submitted that altogether 11 witnesses have been examined in this case. PWs. 9 and 11 are the seizure list witnesses and rest of them are members of the raiding team. Although PWs. 9 and 11 have identified their signatures, but they have stated that they have signed on blank pages and they were threatened by the informant to make signature. PWs. 9 and 11 are the seizure list witnesses and rest of them are members of the raiding team. Although PWs. 9 and 11 have identified their signatures, but they have stated that they have signed on blank pages and they were threatened by the informant to make signature. In spite of this evidence of seizure witnesses, they were not declared hostile. He has further submitted that so far as ballistic report is concerned, the same is Ext.-4, but the expert has not been examined and it has been proved by the investigating officer who was PW-10. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that PW-10 has also exhibited Ext.-5 i.e. sanction for prosecution and neither the sanctioning authority has been examined, nor the application of mind while granting sanction has been proved. The learned counsel has submitted that only the signature on the sanction order has been exhibited, but the content of the sanction for prosecution has not been proved. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 10 SCC 595 as well as the judgment reported in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 637 . Arguments of the Opposite Party-State 8. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, have submitted that considering the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, there is no scope for interference in the present case. They submit that the learned trial court has scrutinized the entire evidence on record and has come to a conclusion that there was consistent evidence on record to convict the present petitioners and have also submitted that the petitioners did not furnish any explanation in their statements under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they were in a state of complete denial. 9. The learned counsels for the opposite party-State further submitted that it is not in dispute that the fire arms were recovered from the house of the petitioners and they were caught while they tried to flee away from the place of occurrence. The learned counsels have also submitted that so far as the seizure list witnesses are concerned, their signatures on the seizure list are not in dispute. The learned counsels have also submitted that so far as the seizure list witnesses are concerned, their signatures on the seizure list are not in dispute. Further, a copy of the seizure list was also handed over to the present petitioners and their signatures were also exhibited and marked as Exhibit-1/3 for Lileshwar Singh and Exhibit-1/4 for Paras Nath Singh without any objection from the side of the defence. The learned counsels submit that the statement of the seizure list witnesses that their signatures were taken on blank sheet has also been considered by the learned courts below and upon considering all the evidences and materials on record, by consistent findings, the petitioners have been convicted. 10. The learned counsels for the State accordingly submit that there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences on record and coming to a different finding and there is no perversity, illegality or incorrectness in the impugned judgments. They submit that this Court does not sit in appeal against the judgments passed by the learned courts below in revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsels have also relied upon judgment reported in (1972) 2 SCC 194 (Para 6) apart from the judgments referred to in their written notes of arguments. 11. The learned counsels for the opposite party-State have also submitted that the house from where the arms were recovered belongs to the petitioners and this fact has not been disputed by the defence at any stage and even before this Court. It is also submitted that effective arms were recovered from their house which is proved by the report of the Sergeant Major and no satisfactory explanation or valid papers were produced by the petitioners regarding the seized arms. Further, the sanction for prosecution has also been exhibited which has been granted by the District Magistrate, Latehar and proved by PW-10 and the sanction for prosecution is a speaking order. 12. The learned counsels for the State have further submitted that the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case although they were party to the raiding team. The recovery and seizure was made in presence of the raiding team and they have fully supported the prosecution case and the seized articles were produced in the court as material exhibits. The PW-10 had taken the arms to Daltonganj for examination by Sergeant Major. The recovery and seizure was made in presence of the raiding team and they have fully supported the prosecution case and the seized articles were produced in the court as material exhibits. The PW-10 had taken the arms to Daltonganj for examination by Sergeant Major. It is also submitted by the learned counsels that although the seizure list witnesses i.e. PW-9 and 11 have not fully supported the prosecution case and have stated that they had put their signatures on blank sheet, but the fact remains that their signatures on the seizure list are not in dispute and the learned courts below have taken judicial notice of the fact that there is a general tendency amongst the independent witnesses to turn hostile in the court because they want to avoid unforeseen future trouble. On this point, the learned counsels have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 . 13. The learned counsels for the opposite party-State have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124 to submit that the object of the provision for sanction is that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider for itself the evidence before it and come to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances is be sanctioned and it should be clear from the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it and after considering of all the facts and circumstances of the case, sanctioned the prosecution. They further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Chandra Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 8 SCC 340 to submit that it is not necessary that the District Magistrate should himself depose before the court to prove the sanction when the sanction order by itself is a self-speaking and detailed one which was sufficient to prove that the sanction was given upon perusal of the material on record. The learned counsels have also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521 and Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563 to submit that the mere fact that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that the same should not be believed and that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be disturbed or disbelieved merely on account of their official status. 14. The learned counsels for the opposite party submit that in the instant case, there is consistent evidence of the official witnesses who have been properly cross-examined by the defence and there is nothing on record to show any enmity or ill-will on the part of any of the official witnesses to falsely implicate the present petitioners and in fact, no such plea was ever taken by the petitioners before the learned courts below and also during their arguments before this Court. The learned counsels submit that considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the fact that the impugned judgments have returned consistent findings, there is no scope of interference and coming to a different finding upon re-appreciating the materials on record as there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity, nor any incorrect finding recorded by the learned courts below. They submit that the present revision petitions may be dismissed. Findings of this Court 15. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds from the impugned judgments that case of the prosecution is based on the self-statement of the informant. As per the prosecution case, on 07.07.2004 at 15.30 hours, the informant alongwith the Deputy Superintendent of Police and other police officers and personnel proceeded for raid in connection with P.S. Case No. 34 of 2004. They arrived at 16.30 hours at Pokhrikala where the spy of the police indicated that the activities of the petitioners have been found suspicious who are the residents of village Pokhri Khurd and several dacoits committing road dacoity in Betala-Garu road have been seen assembling at their house and if an immediate search is made, then it is likely that some prohibited goods can be recovered. On the basis of such information, the same police personnel reached at 17.00 hours at the house of the petitioners. On the basis of such information, the same police personnel reached at 17.00 hours at the house of the petitioners. When the police party was trying to surround the house, then two persons who were trying to flee away were caught, who disclosed their names as the present petitioners. Alongwith them, two local independent witnesses were taken and as per the searching rules, the house of the petitioners was searched. During the course of search of the house, towards the southern side of Aangan, the door of which was north facing, beneath the long piece of wooden sleeper, one country-made revolver of six round and a single barrel gun were recovered. The petitioners did not produce any valid paper of the recovered revolver and the gun and were arrested. In presence of both the witnesses, a seizure list was prepared and the signature of the witnesses were taken. One copy of the seizure list was also served upon both the accused persons and they acknowledged the receipt of the same. 16. It also appears that on the basis of aforesaid self-statement of the informant, Barwadih P.S. Case No. 47 of 2004 was instituted on 07.07.2004 under Section 25(1-B) a/26/35 of the Arms Act and charge-sheet was submitted on 31.08.2004 against the petitioners under the same sections. Cognizance of offence was taken on 08.09.2004 for the aforesaid sections and thereafter, charge was framed under the same sections which was read over to the petitioners and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 17. During the course of evidence of the prosecution, altogether 11 witnesses were examined and the informant was examined as PW-4. PW-9 and PW-11 were the seizure list witnesses and PW-10 was the investigating officer of the case. The seizure list was marked as Exhibit-1 and the signature of PW-9 on the seizure list, signature of PW-11 on the seizure list, signature of the petitioner of Cr. Rev. No. 966 of 2014 on the seizure list and signature of petitioner of Cr. Rev. No. 210 of 2015 on the seizure list were marked as Exhibit 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 respectively. Exhibit-2 is the self-statement of PW-4, Exhibit-2/1 is the endorsement and Exhibit-3 is the formal First Information Report. Material Exhibit-A is single barrel gun and Material Exhibit-B is six rounder country-made revolver. Rev. No. 210 of 2015 on the seizure list were marked as Exhibit 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 respectively. Exhibit-2 is the self-statement of PW-4, Exhibit-2/1 is the endorsement and Exhibit-3 is the formal First Information Report. Material Exhibit-A is single barrel gun and Material Exhibit-B is six rounder country-made revolver. Exhibit-4 is the ballistic expert’s report and Exhibit-5 is the signature of the District Magistrate, Latehar on sanction for prosecution. It is not in dispute that all the exhibits were marked without any objection from the side of the defence. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioners were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they were in complete denial of the allegation against them, but declined to lead any evidence in their defence. 18. It appears from the trial court judgment that PW-4 is the informant of the case who has fully supported the prosecution case and has supported the date, time, place and manner of occurrence. He has deposed that the seizure list was prepared and the signature of witnesses were taken on it and a copy of the same was handed over to the petitioners. This witness had also signed on the seizure list and upon his identification, the seizure list was marked as Exhibit-1. This witness also identified the signatures of the witnesses and the accused persons on the seizure list which were marked as Exhibits-1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 respectively. This witness also identified both the accused persons present before the court. This witness also exhibited the formal First Information Report. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined and he also stated that the father of the petitioners was alive. This witness identified the marks affixed on the seized revolver and gun and that his signatures were also taken over the same. The other witnesses who were part of the raiding party i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have fully supported the prosecution case and the version of the informant–PW-4. They also identified the petitioners present in the court and they fully supported the factum of seizure of arms as well as preparation of seizure list. It also appears that PW-5 has also supported the date, time, place and the manner of occurrence in his examination-in-chief and he identified the petitioners. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had taken position outside and did not go inside the house. It also appears that PW-5 has also supported the date, time, place and the manner of occurrence in his examination-in-chief and he identified the petitioners. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had taken position outside and did not go inside the house. PW-5 further deposed that later on, he heard that from that place, some arms have been recovered. He has also supported the date, place and the manner of occurrence and identified both the petitioners in the court. However, during cross-examination, he has deposed that the articles were not seized in his presence. PW-7 was tendered by the prosecution and in cross-examination, he deposed that he alongwith arms, had taken the position. PW-8 was also tendered by the prosecution and the defence declined to cross-examine this witness. 19. PW-9 and PW-11 are the seizure list witnesses who have identified their signatures on the seizure list which have been marked as Exhibit-1/1 and 1/2. However, during cross-examination, PW-9 deposed that he had put his signature near to his house and at that time, the paper was blank and he had signed under the threat of police. So far as PW-11 is concerned, he has stated during his cross-examination that at the time of making signature, the paper was blank and he does not know anything about the incident. 20. The investigating officer of the case was examined as PW-10 who has stated that in July, 2004, he got the charge of investigation of the case. This witness gave the full description of the place of occurrence and he identified one barrel gun and six rounder revolver and also produced them before the court which were marked as Material Exhibits-A and B. He also described the place from where the petitioners were caught. This witness deposed that he took the statements of the informant and the seizure list witnesses at the same place and all of them supported the occurrence. This witness exhibited the report of the ballistic expert which was marked as Exhibit-4. He identified the signature of the District Magistrate, Latehar on the sanction order and got the same exhibited and marked as Exhibit-5, who had granted the sanction for prosecution. He identified both the accused persons in the court. 21. This witness exhibited the report of the ballistic expert which was marked as Exhibit-4. He identified the signature of the District Magistrate, Latehar on the sanction order and got the same exhibited and marked as Exhibit-5, who had granted the sanction for prosecution. He identified both the accused persons in the court. 21. Before the learned trial court, it was the specific case of the petitioners that the arrest memo does not show the place of arrest and both the seizure list witnesses have deposed that their signatures were taken on plain paper and accordingly, the seizure was doubtful and that the Material Exhibit-A and B did not bear the signature of any independent witness. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners before the learned trial court that the sanction was doubtful and no particular identification was available on the seized arms. It was also submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and accordingly, the petitioners deserved acquittal. 22. The learned trial court considered the evidences and materials on record and found that PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 have fully supported the date, time, place and the manner of occurrence and all of them have identified the accused persons before the court. The learned trial court relied upon the seizure by holding that although the seizure witnesses have not supported the seizure, but they have identified their signatures on the seizure list. The learned trial court noted that there is also tendency of the seizure list witnesses not to support the seizure at the time of deposition and upon appreciation of the evidences on record, the seizure was held to be valid. The learned trial court also recorded that upon perusal of Exhibit-4, it transpired that both the seized arms are well in working condition. Exhibit-5 revealed that the sanction of the District Magistrate, Latehar was taken and the seized materials were also produced before the court as Material Exhibits-A and B. In the light of the aforesaid facts on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners and accordingly, sentenced them as already mentioned above. 23. Exhibit-5 revealed that the sanction of the District Magistrate, Latehar was taken and the seized materials were also produced before the court as Material Exhibits-A and B. In the light of the aforesaid facts on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioners and accordingly, sentenced them as already mentioned above. 23. So far as the learned lower appellate court is concerned, the learned lower appellate court upheld the findings of the learned trial court on the point of seizure list and was of the view that the seizure list was sufficiently proved and which was a proof of the fact that the police recovered and seized the fire-arms in presence of two independent witnesses. The learned lower appellate court upheld the view of the learned trial court that now-a-days there is tendency of the seizure witnesses identifying the signature on the seizure list, but denying the recovery in their presence. 24. This Court finds that so far as the seizure of arms and the legality and validity of the seizure list is concerned, both the learned courts below after considering the evidences on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, have found that the seizure of arms from the possession of the petitioners was duly proved. 25. This Court is of the considered view that there is consistent evidence on record regarding seizure of fire arms from the house of the petitioners and the preparation of seizure list in presence of two independent witnesses, who had admittedly put their signatures on the seizure list and a copy of the same was also admittedly handed over to the petitioners. In such circumstances, merely because the seizure list witnesses had denied the recovery in their presence and stated that their signatures were taken on blank paper, the same is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of the other witnesses who have fully supported the prosecution case. This Court is of the considered view that the evidence of the members of the raiding party cannot be disbelieved only because of their official position as admittedly in the present case, there is no material, no suggestion and no evidence on record to indicate any ill-will or enmity between the petitioners and any of the witnesses so as to falsely implicate the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. There being consistent finding of facts on the point of seizure after considering the evidences on record, there is no scope for interference by this Court on this point. 26. This Court is of the considered view that even when the seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution case, the evidence of the Investigating Officer, if otherwise credible, can be made the basis to believe the seizure. In the present case, evidence of the investigating officer and other witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and given consistent evidence have been relied upon by the learned courts below to convict the petitioners inspite of and considering the fact that the seizure witness did not support the case, but had admitted their signatures on the seizure list. This Court finds no illegality or perversity with the aforesaid approach of the learned courts below. 27. In State of Kerala vs. M.M. Mathew, (1978) 4 SCC 65 , the Supreme Court held prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being pubic servants they are interested in the success of their case. This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 . 28. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 SCC 435 , it has been held that where the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material object is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. This judgment has been followed in the subsequent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including in the case of Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and Others vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111 , wherein reliance of the evidence of the investigating officer was considered in Para 32 to 35 and it was held that merely because the punch-witnesses have turned hostile is no ground to reject the evidence, if the same is based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer alone. 29. 29. The learned lower appellate court also considered the point regarding sanction for prosecution as argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, who took a specific plea that Exhibit-5 does not disclose that the fire arms were produced before the authority at the time of sanction and that the recovery of the fire arms at one place cannot be held responsible on the part of both the petitioners to have unlawfully possessed them. The argument of the prosecution was also considered by the learned lower appellate court wherein with regard to Exhibit-5, it was specifically submitted that it is on record that the District Magistrate, Latehar, after applying his mind, granted sanction for prosecution and that the fire arms were under joint control of both the petitioners. The learned lower appellate court considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and clearly recorded that the sanction order of the District Magistrate, Latehar has been proved and it is evident from the sanction order that the recovery of fire arms was considered by the District Magistrate, Latehar at the time of grant of sanction. The learned lower appellate court perused the sanction order and upon perusal, found that the District Magistrate, Latehar, at the time of sanction, applied his mind and after subjective satisfaction and that the fire arms being found in possession of the petitioners, accorded the sanction for prosecution. This Court finds that even the ballistic test report was duly exhibited indicating that both the fire arms were found effective. 30. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, this Court finds that all the points which were raised by the petitioners before the learned lower appellate court which are sought to be re-agitated before this Court, were already considered by the learned lower appellate court and the same were rejected by well-reasoned Judgment considering the materials on record. This Court finds that there are consistent findings in connection with arrest of the petitioners and seizure of active arms from their house kept concealed under a wooden plank. In such circumstances, the impugned judgments convicting the petitioners under Section 25(1-B) a/35 of Arms Act and Section 26/35 of the Arms Act do not require any interference by this court. 31. In such circumstances, the impugned judgments convicting the petitioners under Section 25(1-B) a/35 of Arms Act and Section 26/35 of the Arms Act do not require any interference by this court. 31. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioners reported in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 637 is concerned, this Court finds that the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the said case, it has been held that, where the facts constituting the offence do not appear on the face of the letter sanctioning prosecution, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the sanctioning authority and in absence of such evidence, the sanction must be held to be defective and invalid sanction cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court to try the case. In the present case, this Court finds that the facts constituting the offence appeared on face of the letter of the sanctioning authority granting sanction for prosecution as has been discussed by the learned courts below and accordingly, the aforesaid judgment reported in Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 637 does not help the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. 32. So far as the other judgment reported in (2006) 10 SCC 595 is concerned, the same has been relied upon by the petitioners in connection with appreciation of evidence of the hostile witness. In the said case, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even the evidence of the hostile witnesses cannot be treated as effaced from the records and can be relied upon in part. This Court finds that although the seizure list witnesses were not declared hostile by the learned trial court, but at the same time, the learned trial court considered the evidences on record and also the fact that not only the seizure list witnesses did not deny their signatures on the seizure list, but admittedly a copy of the same was also handed over to the accused and that the arrest of the petitioners as well as the recovery of the fire arms from the house of the petitioners from a concealed place has been fully supported by the prosecution witnesses, who have been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. In such circumstances, the judgment which is relied upon by the petitioners reported in (2006) 10 SCC 595 does not support the case of the petitioners as argued by them. 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the power of revisional court in the case of Jagannath Choudhary and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 659 at Para 9 as under:- “Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged u/s 401 was to confer 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 precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to individuals. (See in this context the decision of this Court in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary). The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the application would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.” 34. The revisional power is further explained in the case of Ramesh Kumar Bajaj, (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at Para 13 as follows: “It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified where: (i) the decision is grossly erroneous. (ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law. (iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence. (iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and (v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.” 35. In the case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of revisional power held in paragraph-5 as follows: “5. (iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and (v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.” 35. In the case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of revisional power held in paragraph-5 as follows: “5. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse.” 36. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments considering every aspect of the matter and every argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments, no interference is called for. 37. Accordingly, these criminal revision petitions are hereby dismissed. 38. Bail bond furnished by the petitioners is hereby cancelled. 39. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 40. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed as not pressed. 41. Let the lower court records be immediately sent back to the learned court below. 42. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “E-mail/FAX.” Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.