JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed against an order of acquittal in a case under Section 307/149 I.P.C. 2. The opposite parties were charged for having committed the murder of one Sarwan Singh on June 21, 1966 at about 7 a.m. in village Narain Das Khera in the district of Unnao. They had pleaded not guilty. Their case was that a party of 8 or 10 Badmashes including Sarwan Singh armed with guns and lathis had arrived at their door and had started firing as a result of which a she-buffalo, a bullock and a woman had received gun-shot injuries. They also set fire to the huts of the opposite parties whereupon one of them, namely, Putti Lal brought a Kanta and hit Sarwan Singh in the exercise of his right of private defence of person and property. 3. The prosecution examined Dr. R. P. Srivastava who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sarwan Singh and some witnesses of fact in suport of its case. In support of the defence version Sheo Prasad and Chandra Bhushan were examined and Dr. M. C. Sharma, Medical Officer, District Jail, Unnao, testified to have found one lacerated wound on the left side head of Putti Lal on May 23, 1966. On an assessment of evidence the learned trial Judge reached a conclusion that `the prosecution has utterly, failed to prove its case by reliable and trustworthy evidence. .... On the other hand the occurrence appears to have taken place in the manner suggested by the defence and in any case the defence version was much more probable than the prosecution version. On these findings he acquitted the opposite parties. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1962 SC 1788 it was held that: "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently `there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice'." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any glaring defect in the procedure or any manifest error on a point of law committed by the trial Court. The trial court had full jurisdiction to try the case. It has not relied on any piece of inadmissible evidence nor has shut out any evidence which the prosecution intended to produce. It has arrived at its conclusion on facts. 7. There is no force in this revision and it is dismissed. Revision dismissed.