Order: The Petitioner before this Court, was P.W.1 in C.C. No. 1026 of 1971, on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Chikballapur. He gave a complaint before the Gauribidanur Police, and they filed a charge sheet against fifteen respondents, accused alleging that they had committed offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 447 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after trial, acquitted all the accused of all the charges. No appeal has been filed by the State challenging the said order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. In this revision petition P. W. 1 challenges the said order of acquittal of the respondents accused passed by the learned Magistrate. 2. Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that he is only challenging the order of acquittal of the accused for the offence under section 447, Indian Penal Code, and not the other offences. He argues, the learned Magistrate has found that the petitioner was the tenant of one Adiseshaiah and got into lawful possession of the property S. No 497/3 of Nagaragere village. After having found that the petitioner was in lawful possession, he should have convicted the accused for the offence under section 447, Indian Penal Code, as the evidence clearly disclosed that they had trespassed into the lands. He contends that the intention of the accused was clearly to annoy P. W. 1 and as such the offence of trespass has been made out. It is argued that the learned Magistrate was wrong in holding that it is admitted that O.S. No. 361 of 1964 was still pending. There is no material before the Court in support of the said observation made by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind properly to the essential facts of the case and on irrelevant materials, he found in favour of the accused and acquitted them. Hence it is a fit case where this Court can interfere in revision and set aside the order of acquittal of the respondents accused for the offence under section 447, Indian Penal Code. 3. It is clear from the evidence adduced in the case that there was civil dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of the said land. 3. It is clear from the evidence adduced in the case that there was civil dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of the said land. If really the respondents-accused had entered the land in the belief that they had a right to do so, no case of criminal trespass is made out. 4. Apart from this, it may be mentioned that in the instant case, the charge-sheet against the accused has been filed by the State. It is admitted that the State has not preferred any appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused but it is only P. W. 1, who has filed the present revision petition challenging the said order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. In Stephens v. Nosibolla1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out that: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Government has a right of appeal under section 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on record.” 6. In Thakur Ram and others v. The State of Bihar2 , their Lordships have pointed out that: “In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of section 435 are very wide and he can even take up the matter sua motu. The Criminal law is not, however, to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengence by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the state to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book.” 7. Bearing in mind the principles enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am clearly of opinion that interests of justice do not call for: any interference with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 8. The revision petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.