JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - This is a revision against an order of acquittal in a G.R. Case. This revision has been filed by the informant on whose information police took up investigation and ultimately filed charge-sheet. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 4-7-1965 at bout 6-30 P.M., while Petitioner was washing himself near a tubewell close to his Khamar house at Gadkarmala, Dhulia Behera (O.P. No. 1) gave him a lathi blow from behind and when he began to run to the back of his house, Balia Behera (O.O. No. 2) assaulted him. Thereafter, both the opposite parties committed assault on him, as a result of which, he fell down. Hearing his alarm, his two halias (p.w. 3 and 4) came rushing there and p.ws. 1 and 5 who were passing by that way also saw the occurrence. Subsequently, information was given to his uncle Raj kishore, who took him to the Gope hospital where doctor opined suspected fracture of the left hand. While being taken to the headquarters hospital to Puri, Petitioner lodged the F.I.R. On police requisition, his injuries were examined on 5-7-1965 at 9-00 A.M., police took up investigation and ultimately submitted charge-sheet under Sections 325/3-1 : and 341/34, Indian Penal Code Accused, in defence, denied to have committed assault and alleged that Antaryami Das against whom their father had filed a complaint has falsely implicated them in the present case. They also allege that the witnesses are inimical to them. 3. The prosecution examined, in an, 10 witnesses, while witness was examined for the defence. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration and analysis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to establish the charges against the opposite parties beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted them. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner assails the order of acquittal on the ground that the basic approach to the evidence made by the learned Magistrate is not correct; that material aspects in the evidence have been ignored and reliance has been placed on insignificant and minor discrepancies and circumstances in arriving at his conclusions. He relies on the decision reported in Sarju Singh Vs. He relies on the decision reported in Sarju Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh and contends that even in a revision filed by a private party against an order of acquittal, it is competent for the High Court to interfere if it considers that it is necessary to do so in the interests of public justice and in order to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. It is pointed out that in the Patna case the High Court re-assessed the evidence in revision and set aside the order of acquittal. 5. The principles which govern interference by the High Court in revision against acquittal have been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. As a matter of fact, the decision reported in Sarju Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh relied upon by learned Counsel for Petitioner was reversed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh 1968 S.C.D. 238. In the said decision, the Supreme Court reviewed all their previous decisions and re-affirming the principles laid down in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1962 S.C.D. 1004, observed: An interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court bad shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or bad overlooked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstance in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court. It has also been categorically laid down that the High Court is not competent to re-weigh the evidence as if it were on appeal. 6. All that the learned Counsel for Petitioner has tried to stress during the course of argument is that the basic approach in assessing the evidence was not proper; in weighing the evidence, some material factors were not given due importance and so on and so forth. 6. All that the learned Counsel for Petitioner has tried to stress during the course of argument is that the basic approach in assessing the evidence was not proper; in weighing the evidence, some material factors were not given due importance and so on and so forth. To illustrate, it is argued that the discrepancy which occurred in the name of the place of occurrence as originally mentioned and subsequently altered after the examination of p.w. 1 should not have been given so much importance, particularly' when the victim was a sranger to the locality who was likely to have committed an error in giving the name of the village. Similarly, it has been pointed out that there has been no proper appreciation of the evidence of p.ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 who claim to he eye-witnesses. It has also been argued that when it was found that the victim suffered a fracture and other injuries as per the medical report, the learned Magistrate should not have discarded the evidence of the p.ws. 7. All these matters relate to appreciation of evidence, and in substance, learned Counsel for Petitioner wants re-assessment or re-weighing of the evidence which is prohibited According to the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court. Not a single ground indicated by the Supreme Court to justify interference in revision has been pointed out during the course of argument. I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed