ORDER P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by P. W. 1 the first informant against the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Cochin in Sessions Case 5 of 1960. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :-- On 30-7-1959 news came that the Communist Ministry was going to be dismissed by the Central Government with effect from 31-7-1959. In Malayattoor there were two groups of people, one set supporting the liberation movement, the accused being members of this group and another set belonging to the Communist party who were supporters of the ministry. The prosecution witnesses belonged to this group. There were keen rivalry and animosity between the two sets of people. 3. On 30-7-59 when the news of the success of their struggle was received in the village the accused assembled in front of the Malayattoor church and decided to wreak vengeance on all those who were opposing the movement. P. W. 17 is a witness who is said to have heard the accused saying that P. W. 1, Velayudhan and his brother P. W. 2 Kumaran being Communists sympathisers should be taught a lesson. Accused 1 to 20 were then alleged to have proceeded to the Malayattoor Junction, a mile from the church. 4. As soon as they got there they got into the toddy shop of P. W. 2 and had drinks. Some time later a jeep came to the junction. Accused 21 and 22 were among the group of persons in the jeep. When they were all in the toddy shop making merry, P. W, 8 was seen going from P. W. 1's shop. The 1st accused got out of the toddy shop, followed him and fisted him and cried out that he was being beaten. Hearing the cry all the other accused ran up to the place. On seeing them coming P. W. 8 ran away and escaped from the place. 5. Accused then started a campaign of violence. They went to the shop of P. W. 3. P. W. 7 was taking tea there. Accused 1 to 3 belaboured him. They broke the table, almirah, glass vessels, etc., in the shop. Then they got into P. W. 5's shop and caused damage to the articles there. Next they proceeded to P. W. 2's toddy shop and destroyed all the vessels there. P. W. 7 was taking tea there. Accused 1 to 3 belaboured him. They broke the table, almirah, glass vessels, etc., in the shop. Then they got into P. W. 5's shop and caused damage to the articles there. Next they proceeded to P. W. 2's toddy shop and destroyed all the vessels there. From there they proceeded to the revision petitioner's shop which had been closed. They broke open the lock, removed the plank shutters, got into the shop and set fire to the articles there. The whole building was gutted. 6. The fire spread to the shop of P. Ws. 3, 6 and 14 and those shops also were destroyed by fire. After this the accused went to P. W. 10 one barber Narayanan's shop and destroyed the chair, table and other articles found in the shop. The next target of attack was the vacant house of P. W. 9. They went there and set fire to the house. The fire spread to P. W. 5's house and that house was also destroyed. After committing all these vandalism the accused left the place at about 10 p. m. 7. The next day at about 9-30 a. m. the revision petitioner laid the first information statement Ext. P. 1 before the Sub-Inspector P. W. 20 when he came to the Malayattoor Junction on patrol duty. P. W. 20 registered a case, visited the scene and prepared an observation mahazar. He questioned witnesses. On 12-8-59 P. W. 20 was transferred and P. W. f9 the new Sub-Inspector who took charge verified the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused for offences of rioting, arson, house-breaking, hurt, etc. 8. The accused when questioned denied participation in the occurence and contended that they had been implicated out of political rivalry. One witness D. W. 1 was examined on the side of the 11th accused who was an Assistant in Malayattoor-Neeleswaram Panchayat. D. W. 1 is the Panchayat Officer and he gave evidence that on the evening of 30-7-59 there was a meeting at the Panchayat office, that the 11th accused was present at the meeting and when the meeting was over at 7 p. m., he boarded a bus going to Kalady and left the place. 9. D. W. 1 is the Panchayat Officer and he gave evidence that on the evening of 30-7-59 there was a meeting at the Panchayat office, that the 11th accused was present at the meeting and when the meeting was over at 7 p. m., he boarded a bus going to Kalady and left the place. 9. In paragraphs 6 to 8 of the judgment the learned Judge has elaborately considered the evidence regarding the formation of the unlawful assembly and the acts that were committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. He has discussed the evidence of the eye witnesses and has rejected their evidence as highly interested and unreliable. He has commented upon the non examination of neighbours, who would have been the best witnesses to prove the participation of the accused in the occurrence. It is important to note that it is not sufficient to prove that an incident had taken place, but it is necessary to establish by unimpeachable evidence that the accused did participate in the incident. This has to be proved by clear and cogent evidence in a case of this nature where there is admitted political animosity between the two groups of people. No independent witnesses have been examined and the learned Judge on a consideration of the entire evidence has definitely found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed the offences charged against them. 10. Reference was also made by the learned Judge to another important circumstance, namely, the inordinate delay in laying the complaint before the authorities. It has come out in evidence that ever since the police firing at Ankamaly on 13-6-59 M. S. P. and Armed Reserve men were posted in these areas. P. W. 20 the Sub-Inspector was in charge of the Malayattor area. He had visited the place on 30-7-1959. There is an outpost at Kalady two or three miles to the west of the scene. No information was given at the outpost immediately after the occurrence. 11. In the complaint P. W. 1 stated that Ankamali police station is 7 miles away and that he could not go over to the station after the incident for want of a conveyance. No information was given at the outpost immediately after the occurrence. 11. In the complaint P. W. 1 stated that Ankamali police station is 7 miles away and that he could not go over to the station after the incident for want of a conveyance. When it came to evidence P. W. 1 changed the version and stated that the next day early morning at 5 a. m., he started and got into a bus going to Kalady and when he reached Kalady at about 7 a. m., he met P. W. 20 and under instructions from him he came back to Malayattaor and gave the statement. P. W. 20 in his evidence denies this version of P. W. 1. He does not say that he met P. W. 1 at Kalady and from the evidence of P. W. 20 it would look as if nobody made any complaint till he reached the place and questioned P. W. 1. 12. P. W. 1 has given evidence that the next day early morning he came to the scene and found about 50 persons gathered there including P. W. 2 and the other witnesses examined in the case. It was stated that they then held a consultation as to what they should do and it was after that that P. W. 1 decided to proceed to Malayattoor to give information. The learned Judge has observed that P. W. 1 had therefore ample time to shape the case and implicate his enemies. 13. The decision of the case thus rests on the appreciation of the oral evidence and other circumstances and probabilities of the case. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be ordinarily invoked because the court below has misappreciated the evidence on the record. It cannot, in the absence of any error on a point of law, reappraise the evidence and reverse the findings of fact on which the acquittal is based. The High Court will not interfere, when a court has tried a case in a regular way and passed an order of acquittal upon a consideration of material evidence on record, on the ground that the conclusions arrived at by the court below are not correct and do not appeal to the revisional court. The High Court will not interfere, when a court has tried a case in a regular way and passed an order of acquittal upon a consideration of material evidence on record, on the ground that the conclusions arrived at by the court below are not correct and do not appeal to the revisional court. Such findings of fact are not interfered with in revision even in the case of conviction ; much less ought they to be interfered with in the case of acquittal. 14. Dealing with the powers of the revisional court in a revision by a private party against the order of acquittal, the Supreme Court in D. Stephens v. Nosibolla ( AIR 1951 SC 196 ) has stated : "The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S.439 is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the Government has a right of appeal under S.417. It could be exercised only in exeptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on record." This decision has been followed in Harihar Chakravarthy v. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1954 S. C. 266). In Logendranath Jha v. Shri Polai Lal Biswas (AIR 1951 S. C. 316) Patanjali Sastri J. observed: "Though sub-section (1) of S.439 authorises the High Court to exercise, in its discret on any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by S.423, sub-section (4) of S.439 specifically excludes the power to "convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction." This does not mean that in dealing with a revision petition by private party against an order of acquittal the High Court can in the absence of any error on a point of law re-appraise the evidence and reverse the findings of facts on which the acquittal is based." 15. In the light of the principles laid down in the above cases it appears to me that this is not a case where interference is called for, however regrettable it might be that such a serious offence as this has gone undetected and unpunished. In the light of the principles laid down in the above cases it appears to me that this is not a case where interference is called for, however regrettable it might be that such a serious offence as this has gone undetected and unpunished. The order of acquittal is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.