Revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appeal; conviction and sentence were restored after improper High Court interference.

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used as a second appeal to re-appreciate evidence after the trial court and appellate court have concurrently assessed the record, unless a glaring error or manifest miscarriage of justice is shown. Where the High Court re-weighed oral evidence and ignored material evidence, its interference with the conviction was beyond revisionary power and unsustainable. On that basis, the conviction and sentence affirmed below were restored, and the findings of the courts below remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could re-appreciate evidence and interfere with convictions affirmed by the appellate court; and whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed in appeal were liable to be restored.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could re-appreciate evidence and interfere with convictions affirmed by the appellate court.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and is exercised to satisfy the High Court about the correctness, legality, or propriety of findings, sentence, or order. It is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction and ordinarily does not permit a fresh re-appreciation of evidence when the trial court and the appellate court have already assessed the record, unless a glaring feature or gross miscarriage of justice is shown. The High Court interfered by re-weighing oral evidence and failed to consider material evidence relied upon by the appellate court.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond its revisional jurisdiction and its interference with the conviction was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed in appeal were liable to be restored.

Analysis: Once the revisional interference was found to be illegal, the findings of the trial court and the appellate court on the offences under the Penal Code remained undisturbed. The conviction and sentence had been concurrently sustained below on the evidence, and there was no basis to displace those findings in revision.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were restored and confirmed in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under revision was set aside, the conviction and sentence were reinstated, and the appellant succeeded in obtaining restoration of the criminal conviction confirmed by the courts below.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under the criminal procedure law is supervisory and cannot be used as a second appeal to re-appreciate evidence except where interference is necessary to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.

---