JUDGMENT Gyandera Kumar, J. - This is a revision by the complainant Ziaul Haq, in the cross-case relating to the occurrence, which took place on 13-8-1962 at about 7.30 P.M. in mohalla Mulla Tola in the town of Jaunpur, when the Sunnis were taking out their procession of Shabe-Veladat. The procession was accompanied by the Station Officer and strong posse of police and P.A.C. men. Shri V. Saran (P.W. 12), Magistrate I Class, had been stationed at the Kotwali, in order to see that law and order was maintained and that no untoward incident occurred and if necessary, rush to the spot to restore peace and order. Naturally the Shias did not join that procession. 2. The prosecution case is that when the procession reached near the houses of the Shias, some miscreants started pelting brick-bats both from the house tops as well as from either ends of the procession, as a result whereof as many as eight processions received injuries. P.W. 13 Dr. R.G. Lal examined the injured persons and found their injuries to be simple in nature. 3. As soon as brick-bat throwing started, a message was sent to the Magistrate, who rushed to the scene. P.W. 1 Ziaul Haq presented a written report to the Station Officer at the spot, containing the names of 24 accused, who are opposite parties to the instant revision. The Magistrate then ordered the police to arrest the persons found throwing brick-bats and creating disturbance. As a consequence, as many as nine accused were arrested on the spot, while the others were arrested later on. Apart from the complainant and other eye witnesses of the public, P.W. 12 Shri V. Saran, Magistrate I Class, P.W. 10 K.C. Behari, Station Officer, Kotwali, P.W. 11 Ram Lochan and P.W. 16 Chandrika Pandey constables were also produced to prove the prosecution case. They have given eye witness's account in their respective depositions. 4. The learned Magistrate convicted all the accused by his judgment and order dated 28-6-1963. The accused went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, who, by his judgment dated 19-10-1963 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences of the accused; hence this revision by the complainant. 5. 4. The learned Magistrate convicted all the accused by his judgment and order dated 28-6-1963. The accused went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, who, by his judgment dated 19-10-1963 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences of the accused; hence this revision by the complainant. 5. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge has been assailed principally on the grounds that he has overlooked material evidence on record and has also misread the same at places, while allowing the appeal and acquitting the opposite-parties. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and to say the least, find it wholly unsatisfactory. Both the allegations made against the learned Sessions Judge appear to be correct. At page 4 of his judgment, the learned Judge has referred to the arrest of the accused persons in the following words: "The police readily scooped them up from their houses and elsewhere, to prove their smartness and there could be no dearth of witnesses because the procession was of the Sunnis." As already stated above, as many as nine accused were arrested on the spot and apart from the Sunnis, some of the prosecution witnesses produced at the trial were non-Sunnis besides the Magistrate and certain police officials. 6. The learned Sessions Judge did not scrutinise and weigh the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as against those produced on behalf of the defence, nor made any comments as to why the former should not be accepted. The reading of the appeal judgment of the Sessions Judge shows that he has merely dwelt upon the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, but has failed to scrutinise the evidence and material on record. 7. At another place, the Sessions Judge has observed, "Curiously enough, no one had come forward to say that he had arrested so and so at the spot." The fact that nine accused had been arrested on the spot was not challenged by the defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses nor does any prosecution witness appear to have been asked as to which particular accused had been arrested by which particular policeman. At least one of the prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 16 Chandrika Pandey constable has definitely stated that he had arrested Fazal arid Musaheb Ali accused on the spot. 8. At least one of the prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 16 Chandrika Pandey constable has definitely stated that he had arrested Fazal arid Musaheb Ali accused on the spot. 8. Yet at another place, the Sessions Judge remarked that according to the prosecution case, brick-bats were being hurled by the miscreants from a distance of 100 yards and on that account has observed "no one amongst the arrested men had that Herculian constitution." The testimony of various prosecution witnesses has been read over to me by Mr. C.S. Saran, which shows that the prosecution witnesses bad mentioned the distance to be very much-less. Some of them put it at 15 or 20 paces and some at even 7 or 8 paces. This appears to be a clear case of misreading of evidence. The Judge has also remarked that a complaint about the occurrence had been sent to the District Magistrate but I have not been pointed out to any evidence on record to justify this remark. The case in question was of a quite serious type, in which the members of the Shia and Sunni communities were involved and the fate of as many as 24 accused hanged in balance. One would have expected the Sessions Judge to treat an appeal of this type to be worthy of greater importance and analysis. 9. Mr. C.S. Saran, on behalf of the Applicant and Mr. S.N. Mulla, on behalf of the opposite parties, both rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 1963 AWR 56 SC. Mr. Mulla relies upon the remarks of the Supreme Court, where it was emphasised that it was only in exceptional cases that the High Court should exercise the power of allowing a revision against acquittal and converting the same into one of conviction, because of a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The gist of the argument of Mr. Mulla is that the instant case does not fall within the standard laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for interference by the High Court in revisions against acquittal, particularly where it was the appeal court which had acquitted the accused. On the other hand, Mr. The gist of the argument of Mr. Mulla is that the instant case does not fall within the standard laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for interference by the High Court in revisions against acquittal, particularly where it was the appeal court which had acquitted the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Saran relies upon the subsequent remarks of their Lordships, where it has been observed that it was not possible to lay down any criteria for determining such exceptional cases, which would cover all contingencies. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court had itself cited certain examples, where the High Court could, in a proper case interfere with a finding of acquittal in revision-one of them being, "where material evidence, has, been overlooked Neither, by the trial court or by the appeal court....These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be teases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal." In view of the above observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the examples cited by them can by no means be considered to be exhaustive. As already held by me, this is a case where the sessions Judge has not only over-looked material; evidence, but has also a misread it. 10. Mr. Mulla has further urged that while recording a verdict of guilty against the accused persons, the trial Magistrate had not considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence, although 20 defence witnesses were produced mainly to prove the plea of alibi of various accused persons. Mr. Mulla therefore contends that if the appeal judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is to be set aside, it is a fit case in which retrial should be ordered rather than rehearing of the appeal. 11. The perusal of the judgment of the Magistrate shows that he had considered the plea of alibi of various accused persons in detail as also the corroborative evidence of the numerous defence witnesses produced in support of their pleas. But he has given good reasons for rejecting the same. Therefore, in my view, it is not a case which calls, for retrial. 12. Under the circumstances, I allow the revision, set aside the appeal judgment and order of the Sessions Judge dated 19-10-1963 and remand the appeal for rehearing by the present District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. 13. But he has given good reasons for rejecting the same. Therefore, in my view, it is not a case which calls, for retrial. 12. Under the circumstances, I allow the revision, set aside the appeal judgment and order of the Sessions Judge dated 19-10-1963 and remand the appeal for rehearing by the present District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. 13. Before parting with the case, I might observe that on remand, the learned Sessions Judge would decide the appeal on the evidence and material on record, irrespective of my observations contained in this judgment which have been made solely for that purposes of this revision.