M. S. A. SIDDIQUI ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 23rd November, 1979 of Shri P. K. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi acquitting the respondents of the offence charged under Section 302/34 I. P. C. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on the night of 23rd May, 1978, a quarrel took place between the respondents, Prem Singh and his cleaner Gulshan Kumar on the question of non payment of rent. It is alleged that the respondents had threatened Prem Singh and his cleaner Gulshan Kumar with dire consequences. According to the prosecution on 24th May, 1978, at about 6. 30 A. M. Prem Singh had brought the truck loaded with milk along with his Cleaner Gulshan Kumar to the bus stand, Tri Nagar. While he was unloading the milk belonging to Som Nath Uppal, the respondents/accused persons came there duly armed with lathis and they started beating Prem Singh and Gulshan,kumar with the lathis. Gulshan Kumar became unconscious after receiving lathi blows but Prem Singh escaped the injuries. Prem Singh removed Gulshan Kumar in unconscious condition to Hindu Rao Hospital. On getting information, A. S. I. Sukhbir Singh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Prem Singh on the basis of which, formal F. I. R. was recorded. On 26th May, 1978, Gulshan Kumar succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead. On 27th May, 1978, his post-mortem was conducted. On completing the investigation, the respondents/accused were charge sheeted under Section 302/34 I. P. C. ( 3 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in all. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case under Section 302/34 I. P. C. against the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted of the offence charged under Section 302/34 I. P. C. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner has preferred this revision before this court. ( 4 ) IT is well settled that normally the jurisdiction of this court under Section 401 Cr. P. C. is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. ( 4 ) IT is well settled that normally the jurisdiction of this court under Section 401 Cr. P. C. is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In the present case there is nothing to indicate that there is any glaring defect in the procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or that there was a manifest error on a point of law in the impugned judgment which has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice which needed to be set right by this court. ( 5 ) ON a careful perusal of the evidence on record, I find that there is no misappreciation of the evidence on record by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which could be said to have resulted in gross failure of justice warranting interference by this court under Section 401 Cr. P. C. In the result the revision is dismissed. The record of the lower court be sent back.