As a broad proposition, it can be stated that interference may be justified:

1. (a) where decision is erroneous
2. (b) where there was no compliance with the provision of Law
3. (c) where the finding of fact affecting the decision was not based on the evidence
4. (d) where material evidence of the parties was not considered
5. (e) where judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely

But the revisional jurisdiction does not postulate reappreciation of evidence.

The Session judge has ignored the basic facts and has shifted the evidence afresh as if sitting in appeal over the order of the SDJM. This was the basic defect in the approach of the Ld Additional Session judge.

There was no grossly eraneous or perverse findings of fact in this case by the Magistrate which would justify the attempt of the Additional Session judge for reappreciation of evidence.

Therefore, Additional Session judge had no reason to interfere with the finding s of the SDJM in Revision. In facts not relevant to point in issue are not considered by the trial court. The Revisional Court was not justified in reappreciate the evidence.