*1* 6revn17o18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2019 VITHHAL S/O. TULSHIRAM JANJAL VERSUS SUKHDEO S/O. PUNDLIK JANJAL AND OTHERS ... Shri Palodkar Devdatt P., Advocate for the Applicant. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 31 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. By this revision application filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/ original complainant is challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2013, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal filed by the present applicant and confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.12.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Sillod, in RCC No.101 of 2004 whereby, the respondents/ accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 504, 506, 447, 188 and 120-B of the Indian 2026:BHC-AUG:40354 *2* 6revn17o18 Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution story, the applicant/ complainant PW-2 was owner and in possession of agricultural land at village Chinchpur and there is temporary injunction order passed by the Court in his favour. Despite this fact, the accused persons obstructed his possession and assaulted him and his family members and they used to damage crops. It is alleged that on 01.10.2003, the accused persons committed trespass in his land and assaulted the complainant and also extended threats. It is alleged that again on 06.10.2003 at about 06:30 in evening, the accused committed trespass in his land and by hatching conspiracy, assaulted the complainant and his son Hiraji PW-3 by fist and kick blows. They also hurled abuses and damaged standing crop. It is alleged that though the complainant tried to lodge the police complaint, the police did not take cognizance. Therefore, Criminal Writ Petition was filed before this Court and it is only after directions of this Court, the complaint (exhibit 58) was lodged with the Ajintha Police Station bearing Crime No.I- 69/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120(b), 188, 447, 143, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. *3* 6revn17o18 3. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The learned JMFC framed the charge vide exhibit 29. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The JMFC recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the parties and analyzing the evidence brought on record, the learned JMFC acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by acquittal, the appeal is also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision. 4. Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently submits that the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court committed grave error of law in acquitting the accused persons and dismissing the appeal. According to him, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons, and as such, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were required to convict the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120-B, 188, 447, 333, 504 and 506 of the IPC. He further submits that the orders passed by the learned subordinate courts suffer from incorrect consideration of evidence and there is irregularity in procedure. *4* 6revn17o18 He, therefore, submits that the instant Criminal Revision Application be allowed. 5. After perusing the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Session Court as well as the Trial Court, it is found that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod, vide his order dated 28.12.2012, after recording the evidence of about five prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused persons. The order discloses that the PW-1 Tukaram, PW-2 Vitthal (informant), PW-3 Hiraji (son of PW-2), PW-4 Bhausaheb (son of PW-2), and PW-5 Uttamrao (investigation officer) have all been properly examined, and the learned Trial Court, on the basis of appropriate scrutiny of evidence, was pleased to acquit the accused persons. The learned Session Court in appeal also found that the learned Trial Court has committed no error in law. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object of such assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and witnesses. On perusal of both the orders, it is found that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the respective subordinate *5* 6revn17o18 courts. 6. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The revision under Section 397 CrPC confers power on the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by any inferior court. The High Court under its jurisdiction under Section 397 cannot embark upon an in-depth re-examination of oral evidence and come to conclusion contrary to the consistent one reached by the two courts below. It is also clear that normally it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, specially by re- appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. It is also clear that the power under Section 397 is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party and it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said power should not be exercised as against the express bar of law. Thus, once again at the cost of repetition, it is to be observed here that a Revisional Court enjoys limited jurisdiction. Interference by entering into *6* 6revn17o18 merits and re-appreciating the entire evidence is improper and not permissible. 7. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Court finds that there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the orders passed by the learned lower courts. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant Criminal Revision Application. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )