JUDGMENT - R.L. AGGARWAL, J.:---This Revision Application is by the complainant. On 3-12-1971 she was with her child, father Narayandas and mother. The complainants father was holding her child. They had to cross the Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Bombay, from west to east, near Pankaj Mansion on the west and Podar Hospital in the east. This is a main road it is divided by concrete guard stones running along the centre of the road except at some intersections. All of them crossed the western half of this road. However, she and her father also crossed the eastern half and thus they safely crossed the road. But her mother remained behind standing about a foot from the dividing guard stones on the eastern side of the road since she had successfully crossed the western side of the road along with others. At that time respondent No. 1 was driving his Ambassador Car No. BMC 1417 at a high speed and he knocked down the complainants mother Vidya and as a result thereof she fell at a distance of about 8 to 10 on the western side of the road and received internal and external injuries. Respondent No. 1 removed her to the hospital where she died. 2. The complainant lodged the First Information Report. After investigation respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted and tried for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay. On consideration of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Presidency Magistrate by his order dated 30th January, 1973 acquitted respondent No. 1 of the said charge. Against this order of acquittal, the State did not appeal but the complainant has come in revision praying that the order of acquittal be set aside and a fresh trial be ordered in this case. 3. Mr. Albal, the learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner has submitted that the learned Presidency Magistrate was in grave error in acquitting respondent No. 1 in the face of eye-witness account and medical evidence, which prove the charge against respondent No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Presidency Magistrate has not properly appreciated the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence like panchanama. Mr. The learned Presidency Magistrate has not properly appreciated the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence like panchanama. Mr. Albal also criticised the observations made by the learned trial Judge in his judgment and contended that the trial Court was not justified in commenting upon the earlier statements of the witnesses before the police and the F.I.R. of the complainant. All these grounds do not call for interference with the order of the trial Court. No exceptional circumstances have been pointed out nor it is shown that there is any error of law in this case. In fact, Counsel fairly conceded that this is a case of pure appreciation of evidence. In the case of (Khetra Basisamal and another v. The State of Orissa)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 272, Mitter, J. has observed thus: "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. This jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure and there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which will cover all contingencies. However, some cases of this kind, which will justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal are where a Court which 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 Appellate 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 Appellate Court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence; which is invalid under the law." The petitioner has failed to make out a case calling for interference in the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction. 4. The order of acquittal passed by the trial Court on consideration of the evidence is proper. 5. In the result, I find no substance in this application. Rule, therefore, is discharged. -----