JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack, in 2 C.C, No. 287 of 1969 acquitting the accused persons of allegations constituting on offence u/s 188, Indian Penal Code. 2. A proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was at first initiated in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Cuttack, against the accused-Respondents on 23-11-1968. In that case a preliminary order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, and as alleged it was served on the Respondents herein on 24-11-1968. On 25-11-1968 a petition was filed by the person designated as the Appellant in this appeal (hereinafter referred to only as 'the Appellant') before the said Sub-divisional Officer alleging therein violation by the persons designated as the Respondents in this appeal of the said order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure passed on 24-11-1968, and on that ground requesting the Sub-divisional Officer to start a proceeding u/s 188, Code of Criminal Procedure. On the said petition the Sub-divisional. Officer called for a report from the police, and the police reported that the order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure issued by the Court was violated by the Respondents. Thereafter on 8-9-1969 the Sub-divisional Officer, Cuttack filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, sadar Cuttack. On that complaint cognizance of a case u/s 188, Indian Penal Code was taken and the Respondents were summoned to stand their trial in 2 L.C. No. 287 of 1969. In the trial of that case the Respondents were acquitted of the said allegation. Thereafter the Appellant moved the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Cuttack, who filed the Complaint Case No. 2 C.C. 287 of 1969, to authorise the Appellant to move the proper Court for setting aside the order of acquittal passed in the aforesaid case. The learned Sub-divisional Officer, however, instead of authorising the Appellant as prayed for by him endorsed the matter to the Associate Public Prosecutor to examine the position and thereafter to put up the matter before him for further action and/or Orders. As it appears, the Sub-divisional Officer thereafter did not take any action in the matter, and so the Appellant on obtaining leave of this Court filed this appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal passed in 2 C.C. No. 287 of 1969. 3. Mr. As it appears, the Sub-divisional Officer thereafter did not take any action in the matter, and so the Appellant on obtaining leave of this Court filed this appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal passed in 2 C.C. No. 287 of 1969. 3. Mr. A. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, at the outset seriously questioned the maintain ability of this appeal on the ground that the Appellant was not the complainant in the case in which the judgment of acquittal had been passed, and so he (the Appellant) was not competent to file the leave petition and/or this appeal u/s 417(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Mukherjee contends that as the leave petition was not filed by the legally competent person to prosecute on appeal against the said order of acquittal, the leave granted in this case is without jurisdiction and is void ana consequently this appeal also is not maintainable in law. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has, on the other hand, urged that the said order u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was to the benefit of the Appellant, and as that-order was violated by the Respondents, the Appellant was aggrieved and affected by the said violation, and so he was competent to file the petition for leave u/s 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure and that having been granted by this Court this appeal filed by the Appellant is maintainable. In this connection he further states that it was he who informed the Sub-divisional Officer about the violation of the order u/s 144. Code of Criminal Procedure and on that information the Sub-divisional Officer lodged the complaint against the Respondents for on offence u/s 188, Indian Penal Code, and so on the facts and circumstances of this case the Appellant in effect was the complainant in the case u/s 188, Indian Penal Code and as such this appeal filed by the Appellant on obtaining the necessary leave of this Court is maintainable in law. 4. The word "complainant" has not been defined anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the Oxford Dictionary (Vol. II, page 722) one of the meanings of the word "complainant" is one who enters a legal complaint against another. In the Websters Dictionary (Vol. I at page 350) the meanings of the word "complainant" are 'one who makes a complaint; a complainer; a prosecutor'. In the Oxford Dictionary (Vol. II, page 722) one of the meanings of the word "complainant" is one who enters a legal complaint against another. In the Websters Dictionary (Vol. I at page 350) the meanings of the word "complainant" are 'one who makes a complaint; a complainer; a prosecutor'. The word "complaint" as defined in Section 4(ii), Code of Criminal Procedure means "any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code that some person whether known or unknown has committed on offence, but does not include a police report". From all this it is quite clear that the word "complainant" in the context of a criminal case in a Court of law would mean a person who files the complaint before a Magistrate, and no other person can come within the meaning of that word. 5. A case punishable u/s 188, Indian Penal Code has to be filed by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom the said public servant is subordinate, as otherwise no Court shall take cognizance of on offence punishable u/s 188, Indian Penal Code if the complaint for such a case is filed by any other person, as specifically provided u/s 195, Code of Criminal Procedure. So the "complainant" in a case punishable u/s 188, Indian Penal Code cannot be any person other than the public servant who actually filed the Complaint to prosecute the accused. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; dealing with on appeal against on order of acquittal passed in any case instituted upon complaint, as is the present case before me, provides that 'the complainant' alone can present on application to the High Court for granting the special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, and if special leave of the Court is granted, 'the complainant' may present such on appeal to the High Court. That Being so, the complainant, i.e. the person who actually lodged the complaint in the Court to prosecute the accused for on offence is the only person who is competent to move the High Court u/s 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure for special leave to appeal and if such leave is granted he alone can file the appeal provided under that sub-section. The State Government, however, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 417, may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present on appeal to the High Court from on order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court. This appeal has not been presented by the Public Prosecutor and that being so the complainant, i.e. the Sub-divisional Officer who actually filed the case and no other person could have moved this Court for special leave to appeal and/or to file the appeal u/s 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure. If the legislature intended that, apart from 'the complainant' any other person, somehow interested in the matter, can also move this Court for such a special leave to appeal and/or later to file the appeal after the leave is granted, then the legislature certainly would have made provision for the same in that section. In clear terms. The word 'complainant' has been repeated twice over in that sub-section and there is absolutely no ambiguity in the language in which that sub-section is couched. There is nothing therein which enables any other person other than the complainant alone to move this Court to interfere with such on order of acquittal. So, a person who moves the public servant to file a case u/s 188, Indian Penal Code, not being himself the complainant in the case though he may have some interest in the said matter, cannot file the petition for special leave to appeal or the appeal provided u/s 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. My above view is directly supported by the Division Bench decision reported in Udit Narayan Singh Vs. Ramrup Singh and Another It has been held therein: Under: Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court can take cognizance of on offence punishable u/s 186 and some other sections of the Penal Code except on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. That being so, the Sub-divisional Officer, who files the complaint as required u/s 195(1)(a) is, in our opinion, necessarily the complainant. The mere fact that the Petitioner filed on application, praying to the Sub-divisional Officer to file the complaint does not constitute him into a complainant. That being so, the Sub-divisional Officer, who files the complaint as required u/s 195(1)(a) is, in our opinion, necessarily the complainant. The mere fact that the Petitioner filed on application, praying to the Sub-divisional Officer to file the complaint does not constitute him into a complainant. It has further been held: ...In the same way, it was the Sub-divisional Officer as a public servant who filed the complaint after satisfying himself that it was expedient in the interest of justice for him to file such a complaint. The mere fact that the Petitioner as a private prosecutor prayed to the Sub-divisional Officer to file a complaint cannot give him a right to file on application for special leave as a complainant. In the case reported in Pitambar Mohanty v. Narasingha Panda and Ors. ILR 1970 Cutt. 995, it has been decided that no person other than the complainant who files the case can be deemed to be the complainant in that case, however much he may be interested in the prosecution of the accused or in the property if any involved in that case. If the complainant dies either before the presentation of a petition for leave, to appeal against on order of acquittal as provided u/s 417(3) Code of Criminal Procedure or before the filing of on appeal under that sub-section, no other, person not even the legal heirs of the complainant, can have the right to prosecute such on appeal. In the case reported in Drugs Inspector Vs. Chimanlal and Co. and Others the majority of the Judges constituting the Full Bench held that Sub-section (3) of Section 417 applies to all acquittals, recorded in cases instituted on complainants including those instituted by public servants in the discharge of their duty as public servants, and such public servants are competent to apply for and obtain special leave to appeal against acquittal recorded in such cases. In holding as above, their Lordships referred to the above-mentioned Patna decision reported in Udit Narayan Singh Vs. Ramrup Singh and Another with approval. In the case reported in State Vs. Ishwar Saran a complaint u/s 116 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed by a Food Inspector after obtaining the written consent of the Medical officer who was authorised to give consent within the meaning of Section 20 of the said Act. Ramrup Singh and Another with approval. In the case reported in State Vs. Ishwar Saran a complaint u/s 116 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was filed by a Food Inspector after obtaining the written consent of the Medical officer who was authorised to give consent within the meaning of Section 20 of the said Act. The accused was acquitted and thereafter the above mentioned Medical Officer applied for special leave to appeal against the said order of acquittal and having obtained the same he filed the appeal against that order. The Allahabad High Court at the hearing state held that the said appeal was not maintainable. In that case it has been held that only the complainant alone is competent to file the application for obtaining leave to appeal and then to institute the appeal if leave is granted and the person who was not the complainant before the trial Court has no right to go up in appeal against the order of acquittal. That being so, it was held in that case, that as the petition for leave to appeal and, the appeal itself were not filed by the complainant who had instituted the case in the trial Court, that appeal was not maintainable. 7. On the above considerations therefore either the Public Prosecutor on being directed by the State Government (as provided u/s 417(1) and subject of course to Section 417(5), or the complainant as provided in Section 417(3) can file on appeal against the order of acquittal in a case instituted on complaint. No other version is competent to file such on appeal. 8. As stated above, the Appellant filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Officer alleging violation of the order u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure passed by him on 24-11-1968 and requesting him to start a proceeding u/s 188 Indian Penal Code. The Sub-divisional Officer on the said petition called for a report from the A.S.I. of Police and on receiving the said report the Sub-divisional Officer filed the complaint against the accused persons for on offence u/s 188 Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was examined merely as a prosecution witness in that case. Therefore the Appellant was certainly not 'the complainant' in that case. The Appellant was examined merely as a prosecution witness in that case. Therefore the Appellant was certainly not 'the complainant' in that case. As the said complaint was filed by the Sub-divisional Officer, u/s 200(a) Code of Criminal Procedure it was not necessary for the Magistrate taking cognizance of that case to examine the complainant Sub-divisional Officer of the case. That being so, the Sub-divisional Officer, who actually filed the said complaint was alone competent to apply for the specially to appeal against the said order of acquittal and he alone could have filed the appeal after obtaining the leave of the High Court. The Appellant who was merely a witness in the said case was not entitled to ask for the leave of this Court and/or to file the appeal u/s 417(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. As stated above the Appellant actually moved the Sub-divisional Officer to take steps for the filing of on appeal against the order of acquittal passed in the aforesaid case u/s 188 Indian Penal Code and to execute a Vakalatamma in favour of a suitable person in that connection. But the Sub-divisional Officer did not file the appeal. The State, who could have filed on appeal against the said order of acquittal through the Public Prosecutor as provided u/s 417(1) also did not file any appeal. 9. On the above discussions and considerations I am of the opinion that the Appellant was legally not competent to apply for special leave to appeal and/or to file this appeal. Hence the leave granted was without jurisdiction and this appeal is not maintainable in law. 10. Mr. Mohanty at last urged that if this appeal was not maintainable then it should be converted to a Criminal Revision, as by exercising its revisional jurisdiction this Court could examine the correctness of the order of acquittal. It is true that if the High Court sets aside on order of acquittal by applying its revisional jurisdiction, the action of the High Court cannot be considered as illegal or without jurisdiction. But the normal practice of High Courts is not to interfere ordinarily in revision with orders of acquittal, for the revisional power of the High Court is not to be lightly exercised. But the normal practice of High Courts is not to interfere ordinarily in revision with orders of acquittal, for the revisional power of the High Court is not to be lightly exercised. This Court's revisional jurisdiction can be exercised wherein the interest of public justice it is considered necessary to interfere with on order of acquittal or for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised 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. It is difficult to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh at page 1791 have, by way of illustration, indicated some cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in 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 evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the Court of appeal has wrongly held certain evidence to be inadmissible which was correctly admitted by the trial Court, or where material evidence had been overlooked 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. 11. In this case the Sub-divisional Officer, whose order u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was allegedly violated and who filed the case u/s 188 Indian Penal Code against the Respondents did not file any appeal against the order of acquittal in question even though moved in the matter. The State Government also did not file any appeal against the said order of acquittal. I do not see any such glaring defect or manifest error requiring the interference of this Court in revision. The State Government also did not file any appeal against the said order of acquittal. I do not see any such glaring defect or manifest error requiring the interference of this Court in revision. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case I do not also consider this to be a fit case where in the interest of public justice it is necessary to examine and/or to interfere with the said order of acquittal. That being so, it is not a fit case for interference in revision. 12. On the above considerations, the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed