JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated March 3, 1992, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagaur, by which the learned Special Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused. 2. Respondents Heera Lal and others were tried by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses while the accused examined three witnesses in their defence. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, after trial, by its judgment dated March 3, 1992, acquitted all the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The learned Magistrate, while acquitting the accused, observed that the presence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence has not been proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents. It is against this judgment, acquitting the accused that the complainant Jiwan Ram has filed this revision petition. 3. The learned Magistrate has properly considered the evidence on record. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the presence of the accused at the place of the occurrence and their participation in the crime There are, also contradictions on material points between the statements of the witnesses regarding the arms which the accused were carrying. Even the prosecution story does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused persons were armed with Dantla and Lathis and accused Ami Chand was armed with an axe (Kulhari), but no sharp-weapon injury was found on the person of the injured. Even the prosecution did not produce the investigating officer in support of its case. The statements of some of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.PC after a lapse of about seven days and no reasons have been furnished by the prosecution why the statements of those witnesses were recorded after such a delay. The appreciation of the evidence, made by the learned lower Court cannot be said to be, in any way, perverse or unjust. The learned Magistrate has judiciously considered the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused. Even otherwise, as per Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.PC, this Court, in its re visional jurisdiction, cannot convert the order of acquittal into one of conviction. The learned Magistrate has judiciously considered the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused. Even otherwise, as per Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.PC, this Court, in its re visional jurisdiction, cannot convert the order of acquittal into one of conviction. At the most, the Court can order for re-trial if there is some illegality in the procedure or otherwise there is an abuse of the process. In the present case, there is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Court below. 4. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******