JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Prosecution case is that deceased Someswar Naik was the gountia of village Chhuriagarh. He was going to village Phaleapara in the afternoon of 12-7-1964. The three accused caught hold of him on the village lane in front of the house of p. ws. 8 and 12, assaulted him with a stick and carried him to the house of Laiban Mahalik where he was detained during the night and the accused trampled over his chest and abdomen inside the house. Next morning Laiban asked the deceased to g to the house of the accused who assaulted him. The deceased accordingly crawled to the house of Someswar Mahalik. At about 4 p. m. the village Jhankar and the Naib Sarpanch came there. The deceased made dying declarations at different times before different persons one of which was recorded into writing. Later he was taken to his own house where he died at about 8 p. m. The defence was one of denial. 2. The learned Sessions Judge on discussion of the evidence believed the prosecution case that the accused forcibly carried the deceased on the village lane towards the house of Laiban in the evening of 12-7-1964. He disbelieved the prosecution story of the accused assaulting the deceased or causing his death. He accordingly recorded an order of acquittal of the charge u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code but convicted the Petitioner u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - or in default to R.I. for one month. 3. The learned Sessions Judge discussed the evidence of the eye-witnesses (p. ws. 7, 8 and 12) and disbelieved the story of assault though he accepted the story that the deceased was carried by the accused. He discussed the dying declaration, critically examined the relevant evidence on the point and did not accept it as true, both in relation to the medical evidence and evidence of the persons before w horn the dying declaration was made. Mr. Rath took me through the evidence, commented upon various unsatisfactory features in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge while discussing the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the dying declaration and the evidence of the doctor. It need hardly be stated that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is unsatisfactory. Mr. Rath took me through the evidence, commented upon various unsatisfactory features in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge while discussing the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the dying declaration and the evidence of the doctor. It need hardly be stated that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is unsatisfactory. The discussion and the evaluation of the evidence are not as satisfactory as is expected from a Sessions Judge. The question for consideration, however, is whether this Court should interfere with the order of acquittal u/s 02/34, Indian Penal Code. 4. The following questions require consideration (i) Is a revision against order of acquittal maintainable at the instance of the informant where the prosecution was launched by the police? (ii) Is the judgment of acquittal liable to be set aside merely on the ground that the discussion of evidence is unsatisfactory? That leads to the further question as to in what circumstances an order of acquittal can be interfered with in a criminal revision. 5. The law on the question is no longer in doubt and has been set at rest by a series of Supreme Court decisions, one of which is K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In that case their Lordships said that it is open to High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties though the State might not have thought fit to appeal. This jurisdiction should, however, be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases. 6. In that very case, their Lordships observed that it is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Some instances were, however, indicated where the High Court would be justified in interfering in revision with a finding of acquittal. Those instances are:(i) where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the cast, but yet acquitted the accused; (ii) where the trial Court wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution f wanted to adduce; (iii) where inadmissible evidence w admitted; (iv) where material evidence has been overlooked by any Court; and (v) where the acquittal is based 011 compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. The illustrations given above are not exhaustive. 7. The illustrations given above are not exhaustive. 7. The Supreme Court has, however, consistently condemned interference in revision with an order of acquittal on a detailed discussion of the evidence where a different view of the matter is possible. The High Court has no jurisdiction to praise the evidence and come to a different conclusion. u/s 439(4), Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and accordingly cannot set aside an order of acquittal on reappraisement of evidence by merely passing a remand order with necessary direction to the lower Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Such an exercise of jurisdiction is prohibited in law and would amount to a cloak. Where the High Court is prohibited from directly doing a thing, it cannot do the same thing indirectly. 8. Applying the aforesaid tests, the argument of Mr. Rath, in essence, asks the High Court to set aside the order of acquittal by reappraising the evidence. This is exactly what has been prohibited. I am, therefore, disinclined to interfere with the order of acquittal. Reliance was placed on Sarju Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh to show that in similar circumstances an order of acquittal in a murder case was set aside. In that case, the material evidence had been overlooked by the Sessions Judge while recording the order of acquittal. This decision comes within the exceptional cases referred to in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. 9. If the contention to interfere with the order of acquittal fails, no question fur enhancement of sentence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code can be made out. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed