JUDGMENT 1. This Rule arises on an application under S.397, 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and is directed against an order of acquittal passed by Sri S. Mohanti, Assistant Sessions Judge, Ist Court, Midnapore, dated 28.8.79, acquitting the accused persons in respect of the charge under S.304 Part 1/34 of the Indian Panel Code as also in respect of the charges under S.323 of the Indian Penal Code against accused/opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The prosecution case is that on 4.1.77 corresponding to 20th Pous, 1383 B.S. the deceased Kalipada Maity was murdered while he was engaged in ploughing his land in Dag Nos.783 and 784 of Mouza Radhaballavchak within Police Station Moyna. Sub-Division Tamluk by engaging P.W.2 Bhabani Prasad Maity as the ploughman and two female labourers P.Ws. 3 to 4. At about 12.30 P.M. the four accused persons came on the land armed with lathis and wanted to know from the ploughman P.W.2 Bhabani as to why he was ploughing the land and on being told that he was ploughing having been engaged by the owner of the land Kalipada, the accused persons turned towards Kalipada. Opposite Party No.5 Motilal his P.W.2 with a lathi and Panchanan, opposite party No.2 his the deceased Kalipada on the head with a lathi. Kalipada fell down whereupon all the accused persons started beating him with their lathis. The four accused persons thereafter ran away from the place of occurrence and hearing the cries of Bhabani P.W.2 and the two female labourers, local people came including P.W.7. Kalipada was removed to a nearby Khamar and on being advised by the village he was carried to the Thana where P.W.5 lodged an information with the police. The injured was thereafter transferred to Moyna A.G. Hospital where Kalipada died on 6.1.77 at 3.45 hours. Investigation was started and on completing the same charge-sheet was submitted. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of the charges as stated before. Being aggrieved the present Rule has been obtained. 3. Mr. Investigation was started and on completing the same charge-sheet was submitted. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of the charges as stated before. Being aggrieved the present Rule has been obtained. 3. Mr. N.C. Banerjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the first place, contends that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was not competent to try a case where the charge is under S.304 Part 1/34 of the Indian Penal Code as an offence under S.304 Part I is punishable with imprisonment for life. In this connection Mr. Banerjee submits that an Assistant Session Judge cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment for the more than 10 years. As the maximum punishment under S.304 Part I is imprisonment for life the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was not competent to try the case and it was wrong on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to transfer such a case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Mr. Banerjee refers to S.10 of the Code which provides that all Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Session Judge, in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction. Mr. Banerjee also refers to S.28(3) of the Code which provides that an Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. In this connection Mr. Banerjee contends that as an Assistant Sessions Judge is not competent to try a case under S.302 of the Code because the punishment for an offence under s.302 is either death or imprisonment for life, which the Assistant Sessions is not competent to pass, similarly an Assistant Sessions Judge is also not competent to try a case under S.304 Part I as maximum punishment provides for this offence is imprisonment for life. 4. Mr. Banerjee in this connection refers to a decision reported in AIR 1944 Pat. 92 (Bhola Bind & Ors. Vs. Emperor). This case without helping the petitioner rather helps the opposite parties because in this case a case under S.302 was transferred to Assistant Sessions Judge and it was held that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was not competent to pass the legal sentence provided for an offence under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. Dilip Kr. Vs. Emperor). This case without helping the petitioner rather helps the opposite parties because in this case a case under S.302 was transferred to Assistant Sessions Judge and it was held that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was not competent to pass the legal sentence provided for an offence under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. Dilip Kr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no.2 to 5 submits that he relies on this very decision and contends that the case in which the accused is charged under S.302 I.P.C. cannot be tried by an Assistant Sessions Judge. But that does not mean that an Assistant Sessions Judge cannot try a case under S.304 Part I. In support of his argument, Mr. Dutt submits that in an offence under S.394 the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life. But such a case can be tried by the Magistrate of the 1st Class. Same is the case under S.409 of the Indian Penal Code. It is only an offence under S.302 and 363, where the only sentence is death or imprisonment for life, an Assistant Sessions judge cannot try such a case. 6. Mr. Majumdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, supports the submissions made by Mr. Banerjee, but he states that this objection ought to have been taken at the time of trial. 7. I cannot agree with the submission made by Mr. Majumdar. The prosecution was conducted on behalf of the State. The State did not raise such an objection. Only after the order of acquittal, when the State Government chose not to prefer an appeal, the complainant has come up to this Court on a revisional application and the objection regarding the jurisdiction has been taken here for the first time. It is true that if a case where the charge is under s.304 Part I, is transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, he could pass a sentence of imprisonment for life. But if the same case is transferred to an Assistant Sessions judge, he cannot pass a sentence for more than 10 years. But there is nothing in the Code which restricts the power of the Sessions Judge to transfer such a case to the Assistant Sessions Judge. But if the same case is transferred to an Assistant Sessions judge, he cannot pass a sentence for more than 10 years. But there is nothing in the Code which restricts the power of the Sessions Judge to transfer such a case to the Assistant Sessions Judge. Imprisonment for life is the maximum sentence under S.304 Part I. As soon as such a case is transferred to the Assistant Sessions Judge, he cannot pass a sentence for more than 10 years. But only for that, it cannot be said that an Assistant Sessions Judge, in such a case, is without jurisdiction to try the case. The point raised by Mr. Banerjee is therefore, negatived. 8. In the next place. Mr. Banerjee submits that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge cannot be supported as the learned Judge without any cogent reason as disbelieved the eye witnesses. He has simply stated that the eye witnesses are interested witnesses. Mr. Dutt contends that the learned Judge has taken into consideration the evidence of all the eye witnesses and if was quite open to the learned Judge to disbelieve the witnesses. It is not true that the learned Judge has disbelieved the evidence of the eye witnesses simply because they are interested. He has taken the fact of interestedness into consideration, but along with that he has found that medical evidence belies the testimony of the eye witnesses. 9. Mr. Banerjee, in the next place, contends that the learned Judge found fault with the prosecution case as the police officer did not do all the duties which he was required to do. This non-performance of duties according to Mr. Banerjee cannot take away the truth of the prosecution case. 10. Next, it is contended by Mr. Banerjee that the learned judge was swayed by the fact that the defence version was more probable. The learned Judge ought to have found that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case by adducing most reliable evidence. 11. In the last place, Mr. Banerjee submits that the learned Judge disbelieved the prosecution case as he found that the place of occurrence was shifted. As a Court of facts, the learned Judge was quite within his jurisdiction to make the findings as mentioned above. The scope of this revisional application is very much limited. Mr. 11. In the last place, Mr. Banerjee submits that the learned Judge disbelieved the prosecution case as he found that the place of occurrence was shifted. As a Court of facts, the learned Judge was quite within his jurisdiction to make the findings as mentioned above. The scope of this revisional application is very much limited. Mr. Dutt refers to decision reported in AIR 1968 SC 797 (Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh & Anr.) where it has been clearly laid down that an order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless it is found that there is manifest illegality and gross mis-carriage of justice. Even if it be found that the learned trial Judge took a wrong view or even if the trial judge did not appreciate the evidence properly that is also not a ground for interference. It is only to be seen whether the judgment is perverse for non consideration of any material evidence or there has been any manifest illegality. 12. In the present case I find that there is absolutely no reason which calls for an interference with the order of acquittal. In the result the application falls and the Rule is discharged. Rule discharge.