Short Note : This revision is directed against the judgment dated 4-3-1977, passed by the Session Judge, Shajapur, in criminal appeal No. 36 of 1976, maintaining the conviction of the applicants under section 447 IPC, and the sentence of fine of Rs.250 each. In default, simple imprisonment for 20 days, awarded to them thereunder by the trial Court. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application are that on 22-6-1972, at about 11-30-a m. in the morning Bilkish, the daughter of complainant Sardar Beg PW 1, was cleaning the drain, when applicant No.3 Vasalbeg came there and abused her and asked her to stop that work. When Sardar Beg questioned him, all the accused persons came there with Lathi's, entered the house of Sardar Beg, in order to assault him. The report about the incident Ex. P-1 was lodged by Sardar Beg on the same day at 3-30 p.m., at police station Sujalpur. On these facts the applicants were prosecuted, which on trial resulted in their conviction under section 447 IPC; though they were initially charged of offence under section 452 IPC, of which they were acquitted. On an appeal being filed by them, the same, was dismissed. Held: Both the lower Courts on consideration and appreciation of the prosecution evidence came to a concurrent finding of fact that the case against the applicant has been clearly established However, the learned counsel for the application took me through the evidence of PW 1 Sardar Beg, PW 4 Rasul Beg and PW 5 Garoor Beg and submitted that their evidence does not make out a case of any criminal trespass having committed by the applicants as the prosecution has failed to prove that the place where the incident is said to have occurred was the property of the complainant, and that it was the complainant alone who was is possession thereof. However, on going through the evidence. I am not inclined to agree with this submission. It is no doubt true that the incident flared up all of a sudden, which fact has been taken into consideration by the lower Courts while assessing the evidence, and it is in this background that a case under section 447 IPC has been found to be established against the applicants. I am not inclined to agree with this submission. It is no doubt true that the incident flared up all of a sudden, which fact has been taken into consideration by the lower Courts while assessing the evidence, and it is in this background that a case under section 447 IPC has been found to be established against the applicants. It has been found as a fact that the place of occurrence and the property over which the applicants entered at the relevant time belong to the complainant. 3. The revision jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases, where there is a glaring defect in the procedure, or there is a manifest error on point of law, and consequently there has been a flagrant mis-carriage of justice. In the present case I find that there has been proper appreciation and consideration of evidence, and no interference therewith is called for. As it is not necessary to reappraise to evidence once again in this revision. Revision dismissed.