PACKIAM Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgement dated 19.11.2012 partly and confirming the above conviction and sentence in S.C.No.171 of 2003 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur dated 24.02.2006 and acquit the petitioner/accused.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

(3.) The Supreme Court has time and again examined the scope of section 397 r/w.401 of Cr.P.C and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In Sanjaya Ramrao Chavar -vs- Dattatray Dulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 3 SCC 123, the Supreme Court has held that High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non consideration of any relevant materials, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible.