2026:UHC:1898 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 185 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holders for the State. 3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2025 arising out of FIR No. 51 of 2022 (State vs. Manish Dhek and Another), whereby, revisionists herein have been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 332 of IPC and Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC with the stipulation that in default of payment of fine revisionists have to go further imprisonment of one month. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists that judgment passed by the First Appellate Court convicting the revisionists for the offences punishable under sections 332, 353 IPC is against the evidence available on record and hence, conviction is bad. 5. This is a case in which the Trial Court acquitted the revisionists, however, the First Appellate Court convicted them with lesser punishment of fine. 6. On perusal of the order of the First Appellate Court it reveals that after considering all the evidences including CCTV footages the First Appellate Court convicted the revisionists by recording of finding that the judgment passed by the Trial Court acquitting the appellants is not correct, hence, judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable. 7. On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court I do not find any error on the face of the judgment under challenge. This Court in a revisional jurisdiction 2026:UHC:1898 cannot reappreciate the evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionists after arguing at length seeks permission to withdraw this instant revision. 9. Since, this court has already observed that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment under challenge, therefore, permission to withdraw the instant revision is rejected. 10. In view of the above, the instant revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.03.2026 PR