ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This Revision Petition has been filed by the accused in C.C.No.469/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara, challenging the verdict in the said case dated 30.012014 and the verdict of the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No.119/2014 dated 12.06.2015 arising therefrom. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is the respondent herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdicts impugned and the trial court records to exercise the limited power of revision available to this Court. 3. The prosecution case is that at about 21.15 p.m on29.03.2010, the accused persons in prosecution of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly knowing that they are all members of the said assembly, with intention to commit rioting armed with deadly weapons, criminally intimidated the defacto complainant. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons manhandled the defacto complainant and caused hurt on him being members of the unlawful assembly, despite criminally intimidating him. On this premise, the prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(1), 323, 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC’for short), by the revision petitioners. 4. On getting final report filed before the trial court, the learned Judge proceeded with the trial on completing the pre-trial formalities. During trial, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defense evidence was adduced even though opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defense evidence. 5. In consideration of the prosecution evidence, the trial court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 506(1) read with 149 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offences while acquitting them for the offences under Sections 148 and 324 of IPC. Thus the matter was taken up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and on re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction while modifying the sentence to payment of fine alone. 6. The sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge is as under: “(1) For the offence u/s.143 of IPC the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. 6. The sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge is as under: “(1) For the offence u/s.143 of IPC the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. (2) For the offence u/s.147 of IPC, the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. (3) For the offence u/s.323 of IPC, the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. (4) For the offence u/s.506(1) of IPC, the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. (5) 50% of the total fine amount, on realization, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation u/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C.” 7. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the trial court as well as the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and thereby the verdicts impugned suffer from illegality, infirmity and perversity. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused that there is serious anomaly with regard to the place of occurrence, as deposed by the witnesses and as evident from the scene mahazar. Therefore, the anomaly as regards to the place of occurrence should be considered in favour of the revision petitioners to record acquittal. The learned counsel read out evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW7 and the contents of the scene mahazar in support of this contention. She also submitted that the accused persons are Government servants and, therefore, some leniency should be shown in this matter, while considering the grievance of the revision petitioners. 8. Whereas it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case PW1, PW2 and PW3 categorically deposed as regards to the occurrence without any ambiguity. Further, there is no serious anomaly in the place of occurrence also, as per the scene mahazar as well as the evidence of PW7, the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the concurrent verdicts do not require interference. 9. It is the settled law that revisional jurisdiction of the high court can be exercised where there is palpable error, non compliance with the provisions of law and when the decision is completely erroneous. Therefore, the concurrent verdicts do not require interference. 9. It is the settled law that revisional jurisdiction of the high court can be exercised where there is palpable error, non compliance with the provisions of law and when the decision is completely erroneous. To put it otherwise, the power of revision is confined to examination of the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the subordinate courts. In this case, crime was registered based on the statement given by PW1, marked as Ext.P1. During chief examination, PW1 deposed that the occurrence was at about 9.15 p.m on 29.03.2010. PW1 deposed that the place of occurrence was on the basement of the house of one Gopalan. Further version of PW1 is that while he was moving towards his house along with his friend Rijesh, 30 persons were found near the EMS Memorial Building. While so, crackers were thrown aiming at him when he was moving through a road in between the house of Gopalan (PW2) and EMS Memorial Building, Koottangaram. When he searched by using the torch light, he found the accused persons there. Thereafter they followed him shouting slogans. When PW1 and Rijesh entered into the house of Rijesh, the 1 st accused beat on his head using an iron rod. The 2 nd accused beat on the shoulder of PW1 and hence PW1 fell down. The other persons beat him with their hands and they kicked him also. He sustained injuries in this occurrence and he was taken to Asha Hospital for treatment. 10. The main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is regarding the anomaly in the matter of 'place of occurrence’. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, PW2 examined in this case is Gopalan and Gopalan deposed that the occurrence was on the way towards his house. On perusal of the evidence of PW2, he supported the occurrence and according to him, he heard a noise like a bomb explosion and he came out of his house and looked around. PW1 was beaten by 8 persons including accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 2, 7, 4 and 3, on the road towards his house. According to him, he had seen the occurrence by the light from his torch and the light available from the street light. PW1 was beaten by 8 persons including accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 2, 7, 4 and 3, on the road towards his house. According to him, he had seen the occurrence by the light from his torch and the light available from the street light. During cross examination also, he reiterated the place of occurrence as the road running in front of his house. 11. PW3 examined in this case is Rijesh, who accompanied PW1 at the time of occurrence. He also supported the prosecution case and asserted the version of PW1. According to him, the 1 st accused uttered to kill PW1 and they moved forward. When they were in the cut road, the sound of fire crackers was heard and he entered into his house. When he looked behind, he noticed that the 1 st accused was beating PW2 and the 2 nd accused was beating on the left shoulder of PW1 by using an iron rod. He also deposed about beating and kicking at the instance of accused Nos.3 to 8. 12. PW7 examined in this case is the investigating officer in this crime and he prepared Ext.P4 scene mahazar. According to PW7 and as per the scene mahazar, the place of occurrence is the cut road and surroundings near the EMS Memorial building. On perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW3 along with PW7 and Ext.P4, it is discernible that the place of occurrence is on the road in front of the house of PW3. But PW1 stated that the occurrence was on the basement of the house of PW3. But the categorical version of PW3 and PW7, who is the author of Ext.P4, is that the occurrence was on the road near the EMS Memorial building. Coming to the medical evidence, PW4, who authored Ext.P2 wound certificate, deposed about lacerated wound on scalp 5 X 1 X 0.5 cm, contusion and tenderness on (L) shoulder and difficulty in moving left shoulder, to justify the hurt caused to PW1. 13. Coming to the medical evidence, PW4, who authored Ext.P2 wound certificate, deposed about lacerated wound on scalp 5 X 1 X 0.5 cm, contusion and tenderness on (L) shoulder and difficulty in moving left shoulder, to justify the hurt caused to PW1. 13. In fact, no serious anomaly could be noticed in the evidence discussed to see that the place of occurrence is something different from the one alleged by the prosecution since the evidence of PW1 is that he was beaten by the accused when he entered into the house of Gopalan (PW2) and the evidence of other witness is that PW1 was attacked in the road abetting the house of PW3. Thus it appears that no serious anomaly could be noticed in the place of occurrence to take a different view than the view taken by the trial court as well as the appellate court on appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution to hold that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 506(1) r/w 149 of IPC. Therefore, conviction doesn’t require any interference. Coming to the sentence, the learned Sessions Judge is lenient enough to confine the sentence to payment of fine alone. In fact, no modification in the sentence is also required. Thus the Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.