R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred by Ananda Chandra Nayak, informant in Sessions Trial Case No. 103/4 of 1993, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jaipur acquitting the accused-opp. party No. 2 of the offence under Section 436 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution allegation as set out in the impugned judgement is that on 8-1-1992 at 11. 00 P. M. the opp. party No. 2 on account of previous enmity, set fire to the house of the petitioner, as a result the entire house including the movables were gutted by fire. The petitioner seeing the fire on the thatch apprehended the opp. party No. 2 at the spot and produced him in the Police Station. He then lodged F. I. R. whereupon the Officer-in-Charge of Jaipur Police Station (PW-6) registered a case and after usual investigation laid Charge Sheet against the opp. Party No. 2 to stand his trial under Section 436 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused was that the petitioner and others had severely beaten him for which his wife reported to the police and in order to screen himself and his associates from the offence, the petitioner has foisted this false case against him. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined six witnesses and the learned trial Court on evaluation of the evidence, came to hold that the prosecution could not be able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and having so held, he acquitted the opp. party No. 2. It is against this order of acquittal the present revision has been filed. ( 5 ) THE only witness to the incident was the petitioner, PW-1. No doubt he stated in his chief-examination that he had seen the opp. party setting fire to his house with the help of straws and petrol, but the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on scrutiny of his whole evidence noticed some major discrepancies therein. He also took note of the previous enmity that existed between the parties to put implicit reliance on his testimony. Considering all these aspects he felt unsafe to act upon the solitary statement of PW-1. He also took note of the previous enmity that existed between the parties to put implicit reliance on his testimony. Considering all these aspects he felt unsafe to act upon the solitary statement of PW-1. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner could not bring to my notice that any material evidence supporting the prosecution case has been left out of consideration by the trial Court. His only submission is that there has been improper appreciation of evidence which has resulted in the acquittal of the opp. party. Times without number this Court as well as the Apex Court have ruled about the scope and power of the High Court for deciding an appeal against order of acquittal. No doubt, the High Court is clothed with plenary powers to go through the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion as warranted by the facts of the case, but certain guidelines are to be kept in mind. These guidelines in a number of judicial pronouncements have been indicated for exercise of plenary powers. Therefore, in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible and of them one view has been adopted by the trial Court after appraisal of evidence, in that event this Court would not be justified to interfere with the same. In the case in hand the trial Court which had the opportunity to mark the demeanour of the witness has on assessment of their evidence in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case found the opp. party not guilty of the charge. Therefore, it would not be just and proper to reappraise the evidence and upset the findings recorded by it. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision fails and the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.