JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is against the judgment dated 3.2.1976., of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kapasin, acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 325/323, I. P. C. 2. This revision has been preferred by Mangi Lal, the injured and his brother Ramsukh, who lodged the First Information Report of the incident in the police. The State did not choose to go in appeal against the acquittal of the accused. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate has misread the evidence of the injured Mangi Lal, and also disbelieved him on insufficient grounds. I am not inclined to appreciate this argument, advanced on behalf of the petitioners, in view to the following observations of the Supreme Court: 4. Chaganti Kotaiah and Others, appellants v. Goineni Venkateshwara Rao and another, respondents. (A. I. R. 1973, S. C., Page-1274) . "We are of the opinion that the entire approach made by the High Court in dealing with the Criminal Revision filed against acquittal by the private party is contrary to the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. Not with standing the fact that sub-section (4) of Section 439 does not authorise the High Court to convert finding of acquittal into conviction, it has in fact contravened this provision by recording a finding of guilt against the accused and directing the Trial Court to convict them after a retrial." 5. Pakalpati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and Others, Appellants v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another, Respondents, (A. I. R. 1975, S. C., Page 1854) "The revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has not appreciated the evidence properly." 6. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the question relates, more or less, to the appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, it will not be proper to interfere with the order of the acquittal, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, though, sitting as a trial court, I might have taken different view. 7. In the result, the revision is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******