Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Complainant in CC No. 75 of 1985 on the file of judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Pattambi. 2. The appellant filed the above complaint alleging that the respondents set fire to the Nedumpura owned by him at 2 O'clock in the night on 24-5-1984 and thereby caused damage to the wooden articles kept there. The complainant is a person having 7 acres of property and he has been residing in a house situated in a portion of his property. On the date of the incident he went to sleep at about 11 p.m. At midnight he saw the fire engulfing the Nedumpura and he knew that somebody had committed mischief by fire. The case of the appellant is that he sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000. Appellant filed several complaints before the police and they did not take any action in pursuance to his complaint. Therefore be filed the complaint before the Magistrate. 3. Before the Magistrate court four witnesses were examined. Magistrate considering the evidence of the case discharged the accused under S.245(1) Crl. PC. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate this appeal has been preferred under S.378(4) of the Crl. PC. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable since no appeal is provided under S.378(4) Crl. PC against an order of discharge passed under S.245(1). S.378(4) reads: "If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court." The wording of this 'section itself is clear that appeal is maintainable against an order of acquittal and not a discharge made under S.245(1). (See also the decision Alim v. Taufiq reported in 1982 Crl. LJ 1264). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this Court has ample power to convert this appeal into a Criminal Revision Petition. I am not inclined to do so. Here, the Complainant alleged that the Nedumpura was set fire by the accused in the night on 24-5-1984. Complaint was filed after a period of one year. Four witnesses were examined including the complainant. Pw. I am not inclined to do so. Here, the Complainant alleged that the Nedumpura was set fire by the accused in the night on 24-5-1984. Complaint was filed after a period of one year. Four witnesses were examined including the complainant. Pw. 12 is the only eye-witness who deposed that he saw the accused coming to the complainant's compound and doing mischief by fire. Pw. 2 explained that he was in the compound of the complainant for catching fish from a nearby pond. He had no case that he was a permanent resident of the locality. It is also important to note that Pw. 2 divulged this information to the complainant only after a period of six months. The conduct of this witness is highly suspicious and the learned Magistrate rightly disbelieved the evidence of Pw. 2. Pws. 3 and 4 could not give any satisfactory evidence to implicate the accused in this case. The long delay in filing the complaint and absence of convincing evidence were sufficient reasons for the discharge of the accused. Prosecution of such a complaint would only be an abuse of the process of Court Therefore, I think that this Criminal Appeal is not a fit case to be converted into Criminal Revision Petition. The inherent power of this Court to convert Criminal Appeal to Criminal Revision Petition should only be sparingly exercised and that too only in cases where there was grave miscarriage of justice. The case in band is not of that type. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. No costs.