( 1 ) THIS revision emerges out of a composite order of acquittal and an order under Sec. 358 of the Crlpc for grant of compensation for groundless arrest, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case were, that one Mudakappa Virupaxappa kori filed a complaint to the police alleging that the five named accused entered upon his land and committed criminal trespass and also took away his crops growing thereon. In fact the complainant was alleging that he was the exclusive tenant of the land having acquied the right and title from his father Virupaxappa Kori. The five accused who are no other than the collaterals of the complainant claimed that they were joint tenants inasmuch as their father was joint in status with Virupaxappa and as such they also acquired right and title of joint tenancy on the land. However, the police investigated and considered that a case under Ss. 447 and 379 of the IPC was made out and the five accused were charge-sheeted in the Court of the Magistrate. ( 3 ) THE prosecution produced six witnesses including a number of documents in support of their case. The consistent defence of the five accused was that they were joint tenants and as such they could not be stated to have committed the offence of trespass or of theft of crops which very much belonged to them. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence and was inclined in favour of the accused. It was held that the joint tenancy was proved and that the offence of criminal trespass or theft could not be stated to have been committed. Accordingly, the five accused were acquitted. While recording the order of acquittal, the learned magistrate passed another order under S. 358 of the Crlpc holding that the five accused were groundlessly arrested at the instance of the complainant and therefore the complainant must pay to them a certain compensation. Being dissatisfied with that order, the complainant has filed the present revision. ( 4 ) IT is abundantly clear that in view of the decision in PNG. Raju v. B. P. Appadu, AIR 1975 SC 1854 , the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in a case of the present nature is entirely restricted. Being dissatisfied with that order, the complainant has filed the present revision. ( 4 ) IT is abundantly clear that in view of the decision in PNG. Raju v. B. P. Appadu, AIR 1975 SC 1854 , the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in a case of the present nature is entirely restricted. In fact the High Court will only interfere in revisional jurisdiction invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice required interference for the correction of some manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel therefore founded his argument by referring to Sec. 133 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as in that section it is laid down that no Criminal Court could decide the question whether the land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant. In the instant case obviously the tenancy was claimed from a date prior to 1st March 1974. Therefore, the question regarding tenancy was directly covered under sub-sec (1) (i) of S. 133 and under sub-sec (1) (ii) the Court had to stay the proceeding and refer the dispute regarding tenancy to the Tribunal for its decision. It is only after the question referred to is decided by the Tribunal that the proceeding could commence before the Criminal Court. It is especially so because in the present dispute the main question was relating to criminal trespass and theft. If the accused were joint tenants, perhaps it could not be stated that they committed the offence of criminal trespass or even of theft. Being joint tenants, they had every right to go over their land and also to grow crops. Therefore, the question of tenancy was of prime importance. The two offences imputed against the accused could either be proved or disproved upon decision of such a question of tenancy. In view of S. 133, the question of tenancy could only be decided by the land Tribunal and no. t by any other Court. Therefore, there was decidedly a manifest illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate and the said order will have to be set aside. In view of S. 133, the question of tenancy could only be decided by the land Tribunal and no. t by any other Court. Therefore, there was decidedly a manifest illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate and the said order will have to be set aside. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel further pointed out that the order awarding compensation under S. 358 of the Code was similarly devoid of any merit inasmuch as none of the accused was arrested in the instant case. A bare reading of S. 358 will indicate that compensation is awarded only for a groundless arrest caused to the accused at the instance of the complainant. In the instant case no such arrest was made. As revealed from the record, only summons were iandsued to the accused and they presented themselves before the Court. Therefore, the Magistrate could not have initiated the proceeding under S. 358 and the compensation could not have been awarded. That was again a manifest illegality committed by the magistrate. Thus, it is clear case of gross miscarriage of justice and interference is made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the order of the learned Magstrate is set aside and the case is remanded to him for proceeding in accordance with law in the light of my observation made above. --- *** --- .