JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner Kumod Khandual against an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aska in G.R. Case No. 141 of 1970. The prosecution case is that on 4-8-1970 at about 4 p.m. when Parasu Khandual (p.w. 2) the brother of the Petitioner was going towards a tope to attend a call of nature, the opposite parties along with two others who had the common intention to assault Parasu and in pursuance thereof were armed with clubs and katuas came from inside the nearby Thakurani temple and assaulted Parasu causing several injuries on his person some of which turned out to be grievous in nature. Parasu fell down unconscious. On hearing the hulla raised by him, witnesses arrived at the spot on seeing whom the accused persons ran away from the spot. Some of the witnesses carried Parasu in Dola to Berhampur and got him admitted in the College Hospital. The Doctor (p.w. 10) who examined the injuries on Parasu sent information to the Berhampur Town Police Station. On the evening of 11-8-1970, a formal report about the occurrence was lodged by p.w. 1 the brother of the injured at the Pattapur Police Station within the limits of which the occurrence took place. A case was registered and after completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite parties. The latter pleaded not guilty to the charge. 2. Eleven witnesses were examined for the prosecution and after considering their evidence, the learned Magistrate recorded the following findings: (1) Although p.ws. 5 and 6 purported to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, it transpired in evidence that they had not witnessed the occurrence. (2) None of the other witnesses examined in this case had seen the occurrence. (3) P.w. 2 had sustained several injuries on his person some of which were grievous in nature being fractures. (4) The evidence of p.w. 2 the injured that the opposite parties assaulted him stands uncorroborated. 3. The learned Magistrate says that although there is no bar to accept uncorroborated testimony, he has referred to certain aspects of the evidence of p.w. 2 to show that it would not be safe to act on his uncorroborated testimony. 4. (4) The evidence of p.w. 2 the injured that the opposite parties assaulted him stands uncorroborated. 3. The learned Magistrate says that although there is no bar to accept uncorroborated testimony, he has referred to certain aspects of the evidence of p.w. 2 to show that it would not be safe to act on his uncorroborated testimony. 4. There is the evidence of p.w. 7 that p.w. 2 was insane and was under treatment and used to get violent sometimes and beat others. The investigating Officer deposed that p.w. 2 was not a man with balanced mind and was not talking coherently. In the circumstances, the Magistrate felt that absolute reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of p.w. 2. For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate acquitted the opposite parties. 5. The gist of the submissions made by Mrs. Padhi appearing on behalf of the Petitioners is that the learned Magistrate has failed, to appreciate the evidence from the correct perspective and consequently arrived at wrong conclusions. She particularly drew my attention to the fact that the bed-head ticket relating to the injured maintained in the hospital was wrongly accepted in without formal proof in support of the defence contention that the injured person was insane. Even if the bed-head ticket is left out of consideration, there is the evidence of p.w. 7 that p.w. 2 was insane and was under treatment and the evidence of the Investigating Officer lent some support to the evidence of p.w. 7. Consequently, the admission in evidence of the bed-head ticket has not materially prejudiced the prosecution. 6. This is a case instituted on Police report but the State has not chosen to file any appeal against acquittal. It is true 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 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 manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 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 manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. The Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh has indicated certain circumstances under which the High Court would be justified to interfere with a finding of acquittal in revision. Those circumstances are (a) Where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused; or (b) where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; or (c) where the Court of appeal has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; or (d) where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court; or (e) where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. It was pointed out that these and other cases of similar nature can appropriately be held to be cases of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal. None of these circumstances is present in the case before me. It may be that the" conclusion at which the learned Magistrate has arrived is wrong, but that is no ground to interfere in case of this nature. I find on a perusal of the judgment that the trial Court has referred to the entire evidence on record and the other attending circumstances and recorded a finding that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. There is no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismised. Final Result : Dismissed