JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - This revision has been filed by the informant against an order acquitting the opposite parties of charges under Sections 427 and 447, Indian Penal Code in a G.R. Case. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Petitioner is the owner of the tank constituting plot No. 100.0 and paddy land constituting plot No. (sic). It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, opposite parties dug earth from the said tank causing destruction of the fish which Petitioner had reared therein and they also constructed a rasta on the western side of the paddy land on plot No. 999 and there by damaged his crop. Opposite parties denied the allegations in toto. 2. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges and accordingly, acquitted the opposite parties. The State did not prefer an appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner assails the order of acquittal mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate has committed a gross error in rejecting the prosecution case, while not discarding the evidence of the p.ws. 4. though there is, no doubt, about the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in revision with orders of acquittal, the principles to be followed and the circumstances in which such interference will be justified have been clearly explained by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Chinnaswamy v. State of A.P. 1962 S.C.D. 1004 : AIR 1962 S.C. 1783, where it has been observed: 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 exorcised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In explaining what the exceptional circumstances are, it has been observed: It is not possible to Jay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would, in our opinion, justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in a revision. In explaining what the exceptional circumstances are, it has been observed: It is not possible to Jay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would, in our opinion, justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in a revision. These cases may be where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial Court has wrongly shut out the evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal Court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been over looked either by the trial Court or by the appeal Court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Assan Ulla Vs. The State, The contention of Petitioner is that the learned Magistrate should not have rejected the prosecution case without discarding the testimony of the p.ws. In this connection, it is pointed out by learned Counsel for Petitioner that the p.ws. have consistently deposed that opposite parties constructed an embankment on the eastern side of plot No. 100 though the evidence is consistent, the learned Magistrate has not accepted the prosecution case, because the I.O. who made a spot inspection stated that he found a newly constructed embankment on the southern side of the tank. It is argued that this alleged statement of the I.O. may be due to mis-recording of the evidence by the trial Court or an inadvertent error committed by the I.O. in describing the side where he found the embankment. In revision, it is not proper for this Court to speculate about mis-recording or inadvertent mistake by the I.O., or whether the discrepancy resulting on account of the statement of the I. O. was sufficient to disbelieve the consistent testimony of the other. These are matters which relate purely to question of appreciation of evidence and do not come within the am bit of the grounds indicated in the observations of the Supreme Court which would justify interference in revision, nor can it be said to amount to overlooking material evidence on record. These are matters which relate purely to question of appreciation of evidence and do not come within the am bit of the grounds indicated in the observations of the Supreme Court which would justify interference in revision, nor can it be said to amount to overlooking material evidence on record. In my opinion, there is no glaring defect in the procedure nor can it be considered as an exceptional case resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice which will justify interference in revision. 5. Hence, I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed