Short Note : 1. Facts giving rise to this appeal, as per prosecution case are that on 14.4.1969. PW-1 Kanhaiyalal the Revenue Inspector Municipality Mandsaur sent a report Ex.P-1, that Jeep No. MPO 435 of Life Insurance Corporation's Officer is imported in Mandsaur and Octroi duty thereof is yet to be recovered. On this basis notice Ex.P-2 was issued to the Manager Life Insurance Corporation Mandsaur, who by their reply Ex.P-3, informed the Municipality that the Jeep stood registered in the name of Divisional Manager LIC, Indore, and that the same was supplied to respondent no. 1 under higher purchase agreement. Therefore, notice Ex.P-4 was issued to the respondent, who despite service kept quiet, whereupon another notice Ex.P.5 was sent to the Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation, Indore demanding the Octroi duty, which was denied by the Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation, Indore by their reply Ex.P-6. After obtaining the necessary sanction Ex.P.7, the present complaint was launched against the respondent on 9.4.1970. 2. The learned trial Court on evidence found the case against respondent No. 1 not established and dismissed the same. 3. The evidence of PW-1 Kanhaiyalal only indicates that he sent the report Ex.P-1 on 14.4.1969 to the higher authorities. That apart in his statement he has nowhere stated as to when the said Jeep was imported in Mandsaur and since how long he has been seeing its use in Mandsaur. It was for the prosecution to prove that they got knowledge only for the first time on 14.4.1969. It was the duty of the Revenue Inspector to make efforts and find out as to when this Jeep was infact imported in Mandsaur. Merely sending a report on one fine morning will not necessary mean that he got knowledge of the import of the Jeep on that date only, on the basis of which he claimed the advantage of limitation as prescribed under section 313 of the Municipalities Act. The prosecution should have led evidence to prove that for all the time the Jeep was standing in Mandsaur, was being used there only, its night halt usually was at Mandsaur and that it was being plied in Mandsaur. But there is no such evidence. That apart, he has nowhere stated about its price or value when the Jeep was imported and the amount of octroi duty which was payable on that basis. But there is no such evidence. That apart, he has nowhere stated about its price or value when the Jeep was imported and the amount of octroi duty which was payable on that basis. Section 155 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, which provides for penalty for evasion of octroi, states that, the prosecution has to prove that, firstly, the animal or the goods passing into the municipality are liable for the payment of Octroi duty and that, with intention to defraud the council the same was introduced within the octroi limits of the said municipality. The prosecution has not led any evidence to that effect. In these circumstances, the view taken and the conclusion reached by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable or improbable. In an appeal against acquittal, normally even though another view is possible, the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court should not be interfered with lightly unless and until it is shown that the lower Court has ignored or misread any material or important piece of evidence or that the acquittal has resulted in manifest injustice by violating the provisions of law. The Supreme Court has consistently held that though in an appeal against an order of acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded, but it should be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal unless are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. Appeal dismissed.