Judgment : This revision is against acquittal. 2. The short facts are: (a) The respondent No.1-accused is a resident of Arjunapuram. P.W.2 is his paternal uncle. The accused and P.W.2 own some arable lands. Their lands are irrigated by a common well. The accused had not obtained any service connection from the Electricity Department for the installation of an electric motor for irrigating his lands by the use of electrical energy. P.W.1, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Santhavasal received complaints sometime prior to the occurrence, which happened on 212. 1983 that there was illegal abstraction of electrical energy by the agriculturists in the vicinity of the area where A-48 service connection exists. He made surprise inspections of the area on 112. 1983 and on 20.12.1983. On those dates, he was unable to detect any illegal abstraction of electrical energy. On those occasions, he was: able to see the placement of an oil engine in front of the pump shed of the accused. The oil engine was not at all connected with the water pump and there was no excess such as belt etc., for the oil engine to be put into proper use. Some suspicion arose in his mind as to the usage of an electric motor by resorting to the device of illegal abstraction of energy for irrigating his lands. (b) On the night of 212. 1983, P.W.1 went to the place along with P.W.4, Village Administrative Officer of Ananthapuram and P. W.5, Sub Inspector of Police, Kannamangalam. At 4 AM. they were able to see the accused irrigating his lands through the medium of an electric motor abstracting electrical energy illegally from the main post by adopting the device of hooking the main line by means of a wire and connecting it to the electrical motor. P.W.2 was present then there. P.W.1 consequently lodged Ex.P-1 complaint to P. W.5, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.217 of 1983 for the alleged offence under Sec.39 read with Sec.44 of the Indian Electricity Act. (c) P.W.5 seized from the spot, M.O.1 electric motor, M.O.2 switch, M.03 wire and M.O.4 bamboo stick under Ex.P-2 mahazar attested by P.W.4. He caused photographs to be taken of the methodology adopted for the illegal abstraction of electrical energy from the main line by P.W.3. M.O.5 series and M.O.6 series are respectively negatives and photographs. (c) P.W.5 seized from the spot, M.O.1 electric motor, M.O.2 switch, M.03 wire and M.O.4 bamboo stick under Ex.P-2 mahazar attested by P.W.4. He caused photographs to be taken of the methodology adopted for the illegal abstraction of electrical energy from the main line by P.W.3. M.O.5 series and M.O.6 series are respectively negatives and photographs. After completing the formalities of the investigation, P.W.5 laid a final report under Sec.173(2), Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar which was taken on file in C.C.No.92 of 1984 against the accused for the alleged offence under Sec.39 read with Sec.44 of the Indian Electricity Act. 3. Learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him, acquitted the accused. The present revision is against such acquittal by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, P.W.1. 4. The main grounds on which the verdict of acquittal was rendered by learned Magistrate consist of the following suspicious circumstances: .(1) Non-lodging of the first information by P.W.5, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was bodily present in the scene; .(2) Non-obtaining of the first information report on the spot from P.W.1 by P.W.5; .(3) Non-detection of any case of illegal abstraction of electrical energy on the surprise visits taken by P.W.I previous to the day of occurrence; and .(4) The plausibility of the case having been foisted upon the accused at the instance of P.W.2, who is not very well disposed of towards the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the reasons given by learned Magistrate for rendering the verdict of acquittal cannot but be couched in any language other than that of stating that those reasonings are the resultant product of perverse appreciation of the materials available on record and therefore it is that the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-accused would, however, repel such a submission. 6. Of course it is legitimately permissible for this Court sitting 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 only in exceptional circumstances, when there is a 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. 7. But, this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, when there is a 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. 7. The case on hand is not a case of the type involving a glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on the point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice compelling the conscience of the Court to interfere and set aside the verdict of acquittal. This Court has definitely no jurisdiction to re-assess and re-evaluate the materials available on record and come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the trial Court, even if there is a possibility to arrive at such a conclusion, on the salutary principle of giving weight and credence to the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court, which had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses deposing in Court in flesh and blood producing an intransplantable impression in its mind from the demeanour of the witnesses and the manner of the deposition. 8. In this view of the matter, the reasonings adverted to by the trial Magistrate, as stated above, from the assessment of the evidence available on record has to be given due weight and credence, inasmuch as they do not appear to emerge from perverse appreciation of the evidence. 9. As such, the revision, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.