JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Both these revisions are directed against one and the same order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1981 and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1982 is at the instance of the informant who challenges the order of acquittal of opposite parties 1 to 6 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Criminal Revision No. 236 of 1982 is by one of the accused whose conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, has been maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. Seven accused persons stood their trial for offences under Sections 448/506/147/149/323/426, Indian Penal Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Cuttack, on the allegation that on 31-7-1978 at 12 a.m., P.W. 4. the son of the informant (P.W. 7) was returning after taking bath when accused Kailash was abusing him and his family members. He also assaulted P.W. 4. When he cried, accused Kailash lifted him and threw him on a Chaura. P.W. 5, the daughter of the informant and P.W. 6, the wife of the informant, seeing the occurrence immediately rushed to the spot, but Kailash further abused them and assaulted them. When they left the place, accused persons chased them and trespassed into their house and there inside the house accused Dharanidhar gave a stick blow on the right leg of P.W. 6 who is the wife of the informant and other accused persons destroyed the articles inside the house. The informant was absent from the house at the time and on being informed lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1). After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet. 4. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, to bring home the charge, a number of witnesses were examined of whom P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6 and 9 are supposed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 is the informant and P.W. 8 is the doctor who examined the injured persons. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused persons under Sections 448/506/147/149/323/426, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each on all counts, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 6. P.W. 7 is the informant and P.W. 8 is the doctor who examined the injured persons. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused persons under Sections 448/506/147/149/323/426, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each on all counts, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 6. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge excepting convicting accused Kailash u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, for having caused hurt to P.Ws. 4 and 5 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days, set aside all other convictions and sentences and hence the aforesaid two revisions. 7. Mr. S.K. Dey, the learned Counsel for the informant Petitioner contends that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on an error of record and also on perverse appreciation of evidence which has caused gross miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this should be a fit case where the order of acquittal should be vacated and the matter should be remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for re-consideration. Mr. Palit, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons, on the other hand contends that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly expressed himself, but a reading of the impugned judgment would show that he has rejected the evidence of the eye-witnesses and in that view of the matter, the question of interference with the said order, particularly at the instance of the informant, does not arise. The power of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal at the instance of private parties has been well discussed in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 1962 S.C.D. 1004. It has been held in the said case: It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for deter- mining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may however indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, let me now examine the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It would clearly reveal that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 has been discarded since their names did not find place in the F.I.R. and they being not the residents of the place of occurrence, but of neighbouring villages and no justifiable reasons having come forward to probabilise their presence at the place of occurrence. In my opinion, they are good grounds for discarding the evidence of the witnesses for a court of fact. 8. Coming to the other evidence, namely, the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed their evidence at length, but ultimately came to the conclusion that their evidence could be accepted only in so far as it relates to assault of Kailash on P.Ws. 8. Coming to the other evidence, namely, the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed their evidence at length, but ultimately came to the conclusion that their evidence could be accepted only in so far as it relates to assault of Kailash on P.Ws. 4 and 5 and there was no satisfactory evidence as regards the other offences charged against the rest of the accused persons. It is true that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not stated in so many words that the evidence of these witnesses namely P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 is unworthy of credit so far as it relates to other offences charged against the accused persons, but an overall reading of the judgment would show that he has not accepted their version so far as it relates to other part of the prosecution case. That being so, the sum total of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge would be that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 only so far as the assault made by Kailash on them is concerned and their evidence has been discarded in relation to the rest of the prosecution case and, therefore, so far as the acquitted accused persons are concerned, the prosecution evidence has been totally rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. 9. As contended by Mr. Dey, the learned Counsel for the informant-Petitioner, of course, there is an error of record committed by the Additional Sessions Judge, when he says that P.W. 6 has not been examined by the doctor, though in fact P.W. 6 was examined by the doctor (P.W. 8) as would appear from the evidence of P.W. 8 and Mr. Palit appearing for the acquitted accused persons also agrees that the aforesaid observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is an error of record. Palit appearing for the acquitted accused persons also agrees that the aforesaid observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is an error of record. But even then, the mere error of record committed by the Additional Sessions Judge, referred to above, would not bring the case within the parameter of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chinnaswamy Reddy's case 1962 S.C.D. 1004 (supra), as in my opinion, neither there has been any glaring defect in procedure nor is there any manifest error on a point of law in consequence of which there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice, particularly when the evidence of eye-witnesses to the occurrence has been discussed and discarded. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant and Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1982 must, therefore, be dismissed. 10. Coming to the other revision, Petitioner Kailash has been convicted u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, by the Magistrate and the said conviction has been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has been taken into consideration the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 which gets corroboration from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 8) as well as the injury report filed by him. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I do not find any infirmity in the same. Mr. Palit appearing for the Petitioner, however, contends that since a major part of the prosecution case has been disbelieved, it was not open to the Additional Sessions Judge to convict the Petitioner Kailash on the self-same evidence. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention is not at all sustainable in law. It is too well-known that while appreciating the evidence, a court of fact can separate the chaff from the grain and accept the grain in forming its conclusion. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has adopted the same method while relying upon the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 which also gets sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence of P.W. 8. I do not, therefore, find any force in the contention of Mr. Plait and accordingly Criminal Revision No. 236 of 1982 must be dismissed. 11. In the ultimate result, therefore, both the Criminal Revisions are dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed