Short Note : 1. In Sessions Trial No.1 of 1977, the non-petitioner Madhodas was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur, for committing murder of his co-villager Madholal. Holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the non-petitioner Madhodas, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his judgment dated 18-10-1977, acquitted him of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. The State Government could have but did not consider it worth any while to take action for an appeal against the order of acquittal. The present petition of revision has been filed by Motisingh (P.W. 13) who happens to be one of the sons of the deceased Madhodas. Held: It is settled law that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon this Court in this respect is not lightly to be exercised. As reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Thakurdas v. State of M.P., ( 1978 JLJ 165 ), it can be exercised in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. The 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 the record. The question therefore is whether the facts and the circumstances of this case make out any of these well recognised grounds for interference with the impugned order of acquittal. 2. It deserves mention that Badri (P.W. 16) himself was at one stage considered as a suspect in this case. Besides, he was then involved in a number of criminal cases as an accused. One was of kidnapping a woman, another of committing murder and the third one under Sections 147 and 326 I.P.C. He was also proceeded against under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the police. Because of this background to boot, the evidence of Badri (PW 16) would require a very cautious approach, more so because he is the only witness who claims to have seen the non-petitioner Madhodas coming out of the hut of Madholal with a sword in hand on that fateful night. Let us assume without admitting that Badri (PW 16) went from his village in a bus via Datarda to Sheopur and that he chanced to meet Bansilal (PW11) at Datarda. Let us assume without admitting that Badri (PW 16) went from his village in a bus via Datarda to Sheopur and that he chanced to meet Bansilal (PW11) at Datarda. It is, however, extremely difficult to believe that Bansilal (P.W.11) made him run an errand which would involve a deteur to Soi, a village not failing on his way to Sheopur. 3. The only other item of evidence against the non-petitioner Madhodas is about his alleged enmity with the deceased Madholal. It comes from Omprakash (PW 12), Motisingh (PW 13) and Ramniwas (PW 15). The cause of enmity is said to be the dispute which existed between them over the boundary-strip of their fields. It is said that within a short period of six months prior to the occurrence in question, Madholal was threatened twice by the non-petitioner Madhodas with dire consequences in case he did not set right his boundary-strip. Was the matter reported to the police? No. Did any of them tell about it to anybody? No That apart, there is not independent evidence to support their version. It must, therefore, be dismissed as false as is the submission of the non-petitioner Madhodas. 4. The state of affairs being as above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have hardly had any option but to conclude that the non-petitioner Madhodas at least had nothing to do with the murder of Madholal. There is absolutely no ground for interference with that finding in revision. 1978 JLJ 165 relied on. Revision dismissed.