KASTHURI Vs. GOVINDARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution witness No.1 viz., Kasturi filed a revision against the judgment dated 19.10.1987 in S.C.No.112 of 1987 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram acquitting the 1st respondent/accused for the offences under Secs.394, 341 and 307, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the accused also contended that this being a revision unless there is a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice, no interference is called for. he relied on the decision in Ramu v. Jagannath Ramu v. Jagannath , 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 181 wherein it is observed that it is a well-settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it has been invoked by a private complaint. He also relied on the decision in Bansilal and others v. Laxman Singh Bansilal and others v. Laxman Singh, 1986 S.C.C. (Crl.) 342 wherein it is stated that unless view of the trial court is illegal or perverse, High Court cannot interfere with that view merely because it prefers a different view. Applying these decisions, it can be concluded that there is a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice and, hence, no interference is called for.