JUDGMENT - P.V. NIRGUDKAR, J.:---One Dulba Tukaram Bakhar has filed this Criminal Revision under section 401(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondents for setting aside their acquittal and for retrial. 2. The petitioner was the original complainant in Criminal Case No. 289 of 1985 and respondents 2 and 3 were the accused in that case. Those accused were tried for offence punishable under section 325, 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was at the instance of the complainant, the State of Maharashtra prosecuted the accused and it was a police case. 3. However, on merits the case ended in acquittal. The State did not come in appeal and the aggrieved complainant has filed this revision. There is no doubt that in exceptional cases even a private complainant can file a revision and the High Court can order retrial but there must be some illegality or utter ignorance of reliable testimony of eye-witnesses or error in point of law, as held in (Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh)1, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1415, (Krishana Namdeo Chimurkar v. Suleman and Emperor)2, A.I.R. (35)1948 Nagpur 276, (Logendranath Jha and others v. Shri Polai Lal Biswas)3, A.I.R. (38)1951 S.C. 316. We can usefully refer to the decision in (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another)4, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1788 wherein the Supreme Court observed as under : "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 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. 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 determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Some cases of this kind however may be indicated, which would 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. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of section 439(4)". 4. The law on the point has been summarised by three Judges of the Supreme Court in (Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and others)5, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1854 and it is laid down:--- "The revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of Public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower Court has not appreciated the evidence properly". 5. To my mind, this ruling is applicable to the facts of this case. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower Court has not appreciated the evidence properly". 5. To my mind, this ruling is applicable to the facts of this case. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence laid down by the complainant while acquitting the accused and so the retrial should be ordered when the matter is only one of reappreciating evidence revision is not tenable. Further if on fresh reappraisal of the entire evidence another view is possible, again revision is not a remedy. For these circumstances, I think that the present revision is misconceived and it should be dismissed. This criminal revision application is dismissed. Rule discharged. Application dismissed. -----