Short Note : 1. This revision petition was directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsimhapur, in Criminal Case No. 427 of 1972, before him acquitting the respondents of offence punishable under section 325 IPC, with the help of section 34 IPC. 2. The material facts were that on 18-3-1972 at about 11 a.m., the petitioner Ramprasad in village Dhaman near a revulet was surrounded by the non-applicants and beaten by means of sticks, that when the other eyewitnesses came there shouting, the respondents ran away. The injured petitioner lodged the first information report at 4-30 p.m., at Themi police station. Dr. Dixit, Assistant Surgeon, Narsimhapur, examined his injuries the day following. The police after due investigation prosecuted the respondents for the offence punishable under section 325 IPC, read with section 34 IPC. 3. The defence of the respondent No.3 was that while he was working near the rivulet in his field and when he came to rescue the respondent Manohar Singh, he was beaten by the petitioner and others. The respondent Manohar Singh's defence was that when he had taken the bullocks to the rivulet for drinking water, the petitioner and Jhalkansingh had beaten him with sticks. The defence of respondent Laxmi Prasad was that when he saw the respondent Manchar being beaten, he went there and he too was beaten. 4. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence found that though the petitioner bad in juries on his person, the respondents Manoharsingh and Laxmiprasad had also injuries and that their in juries were more serious. He also found that Mulloo (P. W. 3) was not reliable and that the petitioner Ramprasad too had also not given a true version of the incident. He therefore, after weighing up the evidence acquitted the respondents. 6. The State did not take any further steps. The other party to the quarrel went in revision before the High Court. 7. Held: The power of High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very limited in nature particularly where the State has not chosen (as in this case) to come up in revision. The other party to the quarrel went in revision before the High Court. 7. Held: The power of High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very limited in nature particularly where the State has not chosen (as in this case) to come up in revision. Before, the High Court could interfere in exercising its revisional jurisdiction there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the lower Court, or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice [See, Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another (AIR 1968 SC, 707, at p. 709)]. 8. In a revision against an acquittal by a private complainant, the High Court cannot re-appraise evidence for itself as if it is acting as a Court of Appeal and then ordering a re-trial. (Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC, p. 2145.) In a case which had proceed on a police on a police report, a private party has no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of section 435 are very wide, the Criminal Law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party has caused injury to it Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party aggrieved is the State, which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person acting against the social interest of the community to book Thakur Ram and others v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC, at p. 917. 9. On application of these principles of law to the evidence adduced by the State before the learned Magistrate it cannot be said that his finding is in any way perverse. He has followed the correct procedure and his judgment proceeds on reasonable appreciation of the evidence. Revision dismissed.