PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) OVER a trivial dispute relating to cutting of some branches of a Chakunda tree, the parties have travelled through corridors of three courts on the accusation that on 2-7-1983 the respondents (also described as accused) cut some branches of a Chakunda tree. The matter was reported at the local Police Station. The accused after coming to know about information being given at the police Station, got furious and on the date of occurrence cut and removed the entire Chakunda tree from the backyard of the complainant-appellant. ( 2 ) THE accused persons denied the occurrence. ( 3 ) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Salipur (in short 'jmfc') found the accused guilt, of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'the IPC') and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, with a default stipulation of one month. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence, on analysing the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 the appellate court came to hold that the complainant had filed to establish the accusations. Several factors weighed with the appellate court for setting aside the order passed by the learned JMFC. It was observed that there was no consistancy in the evidence of witnesses regarding removal of branches of Chakunda tree. Referring to evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4, it was held that the witnesses were not aware about details of land on which the Chakunda tree allegedly wood. So far as P. W. 2 is concerned, it was observed that the evidence of said witness showed as if Manguli and Kanlesi cut the Chakunda tree, and other accused persons abused the complainant. To the same effect was the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4. But according to P. W. 1, all the accused persons were involved. As regards the number of trees on the disputed plot, there was variance in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. It was found to he suspicious that no information was given at the out-post which is hardly one mile away from the alleged spot of occurrence when it was Claimed that the entire process of cutting and removal of Chakunda tree took about four hours. 1 and 2. It was found to he suspicious that no information was given at the out-post which is hardly one mile away from the alleged spot of occurrence when it was Claimed that the entire process of cutting and removal of Chakunda tree took about four hours. ( 4 ) PRIOR to the amendment of the corresponding old Section 417 by Act 26 of 1956 (presently Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') no one other than State Government could prefer an appeal against acquittal in any case. Where the accused has been improperly acquitted in a prosecution for a grave crime, it is again beyond controversy that the state should he primarily concerned, for the tact that a guilty person escapes the retribution of justice even where the material for convicting him is true and adequate, is one which effects public interest and welfare of the state, equally with a wrongful conviction. Sub-Section (4) gives the right of appeal to the complainant in a case instituted on a complaint, subject only to his obtaining special leave from the High Court. The law has taken the prosecution that no frivolous or vexatious appeal is filed at the instance of a private prosecutor. The said sub-Section applies not only to original orders of acquittal but also to appellate orders or acquittal as is evident from sub-Section (1 ). The power which the High Court will be called upon the exercise in case special leave is granted will be the power which the High Court exercises in an appeal against an order of acquittal and the principles which govern such appeals will have to be kept in view while considering the petition for leave. The rules and the limitations affecting appeals from acquittals are on a par with those relating to appeals from convictions. In an appeal from an order of acquittal, there is always a presumption in favour of the innocence of the accused. This presumption very materially affects the question of onus, which except within a limited range of cases, lies upon the prosecution, and where the finding of the subordinate court is in favour of the accused, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove that the finding reached by the court below cannot be displaced. This presumption very materially affects the question of onus, which except within a limited range of cases, lies upon the prosecution, and where the finding of the subordinate court is in favour of the accused, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove that the finding reached by the court below cannot be displaced. There is initial presumption of innocence in favour of accused, and that presumption when strengthened by an acquittal assumes greater force. There the evidence against the accused is too scanty or insufficient to support the charge, finding of the court below should not be displaced where the case is somwhere on the border line of acquittal and conviction, or very near it, and it was possible for the Court to tilt in favour of acquittal, reversal of the order of acquittal would amount to miscarriage of justice. ( 5 ) THE conclusions of the appellate court do not appear to be perverse, unreasonable and in any event are not against the materials on record. I do not find any scope for interference in this appeal which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed .