Judgment : N. ARUMUGHAM, J. ( 1 ) THE injured P. W. 1 by name Rajaratnam is the revision petitioner herein challenging the propriety and legality and validity of the Judgment of acquittal of all the accused, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr1. Appeal No. 142/91 dated 4. 2. 1993 which was filed by the accused against the verdict of finding guilty and conviction of the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli in C. C. No. 150/88 dated 18. 4. 1991 who convicted the first accused for the offence under Sec. 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo one Month R. I. , the second accused for the offence under Sec. 324 and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months; the 5th accused for the offence under Sec. 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to undergo R. I. for a period of three months and acquitting accused 3 and 4. ( 2 ) AT about 8. 15 p. m. on 1. 8. 1986 while P. W. 1 was standing in front of a shop at Kallikulam alongwith P. W. 4 Charadurai the 5th accused who is son of the 2nd accused came there at that time and P. W. 1 asked the 5th accused as to whether the filing of the case by his father against them was justifiable. Immediately, the rest of the accused 1 to 4 came there running and the first accused Beat P. W. 1 on his head with a stick in his hand; the second accused also beat P. W. 1 on his head with a stick in his hand; the 3rd accused gave a hit upon the nose of P. W. 1. with stick and then the 5th accused snatched the stick from the 3rd accused and beat P. W. 1 above his right hand fingers the 4th accused also beat. P. W. 1 above his back and other parts of the body. These over acts were witnessed by P. W. 3 Dakshinamoorty, P. W. 2, P. W. 4, P. W. 7 and others. Then, all the accused ran away. P. W. 1 above his back and other parts of the body. These over acts were witnessed by P. W. 3 Dakshinamoorty, P. W. 2, P. W. 4, P. W. 7 and others. Then, all the accused ran away. Then P. W. 8 came to the scene and on noticed P. W. 1 with all bleeding injuries and P. W. 1/ was take to the Valliyur Police Station by P. W. ls brother and P. W. 9 at about 9. 45 pm, where P. W. 1 gave a complaint Ex. P. 1 attested by P. W. 9 whereupon P. W. 1 was sent to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli for treatment with a medical memo. ( 3 ) P. W. 10 the Head Constable attached to Valliyur Police Station recorded the complaint given by P. W. 1 at about 9. 45 p. m. and registered the same in his Police Station Crime No. 191/86 for the offences, against the accused under sections 147, 148,323 and 324 IPC and referred the matter to the. Sub Inspector for further investigation. P. W. 11 Deivasigamani, Assistant Professor attached to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital examined P. W. 1 who came there with medical memo for the injuries found upon his person and according to P. W. 11, injury No. 3 was serious and the rest are simple in nature. Ex. P. 4 is the wound certificate given by him. He has noticed four injuries in all. P. W. 6 Dr. Paramasivam, attached to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital took X-ray upon the skull and right hand of P. W. Ion 1. 8. 1986 and 4. 8. 1986 and on examination of the same he found that the first bone of the index finger of P. W. 1 was fractured. Consequently he gave a report Ex. P. 3 and the skiagram was marked as M. O. 1 (Series ). ( 4 ) P. W. 13 Sakaralingam, Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Vallyur Police Station took up the investigation of the case, registered by P. W. 10 and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 10. 00 p. m. on the same day and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 2 in the presence of P. W. 5. He also prepared rough sketch Ex. P. S. Then he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 2. 10. 1986 at about 2. 00 p. m. on the same day and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 2 in the presence of P. W. 5. He also prepared rough sketch Ex. P. S. Then he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 2. 10. 1986 at about 2. 30 A. M. he arrested the 2nd and 3rd accused and sent them for remand. Thereafter, P. W. 12 took up the investigation as P. W. 13 was transferred, and took up the further investigation, examined further witnesses and laid the final report. ( 5 ) ON examining the accused, they pleaded not guilty to the charge and full trial was conducted. When questioned under section 313 of Cr. P. C. , they have denied their complicity in the crime but however, none was examined on behalf of the accused as defence witness. ( 6 ) AFTER considering the oral testimony as well as the documentary evidence let in by the prosecution through P. Ws. 1 to 13 and Ex. P. 1 to P. 5 with M. O. (series), the learned trial Magistrate found that accused Nos. 1, 2 and alone were guilty for the offence under sections 323, 324 and 325 respectively and accused Nos. 3 and 4 were not guilty. Learned trial Magistrate found that the evidence of P. W. 1, the injured in narrating the several overt act of the accused 1, 2 and 5 has been clearly corroborated by the eye witnesses P. W. 2, 3, 4 and 7 and with the further corroboration by the medical evidence and that therefore, he has recorded the finding of guilty and accordingly convicted them. In so far as the accused 3 and 4 are concerned, it was the specific finding of the learned trial Magistrate that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not only inadequate but also inherent and with further suspicion and not cogent and hence he gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted accused 3 and 4. ( 7 ) ACCUSED 1, 2 and 5 preferred an appeal against their conviction in C. A. No. 142/91 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli which was allowed by the learned lower appellate Judge after the re appraisal and consideration of the entire materials and the evidence adduced in this case. Aggrieved by the acquittal Judgment the aggrieved party viz. Aggrieved by the acquittal Judgment the aggrieved party viz. , P. W. 1 the victim in this case has come forward with the grievance in this revision challenging the propriety, legality and the validity of the judgment of acquittal above referred. ( 8 ) IT appears that the state has not preferred any revision or appeal against the acquittal of the 3rd and 4th accused. However, accused 1, 2 and 5 have preferred an appeal and succeeded in it and against which the present revision is projectal. I have heard Miss Nappinai on behalf of the revision petitioner. She took me through the entire judgment rendered by the learned lower appellate Judge. The three aspects on which the learned Judge disbelieved the reversion of P. W. 1, the injured victim on the one hand and the occurrence witnesses P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 7 on the other hand are firstly for the reason that the First Information Report Ex. P. 1 though lodged with the Valliyur Police Station with no delay however do not contain the names of the ocular witnesses and secondly, the learned Judge has opined that since the complaint/fir does not contain the version of P. W. 1 stating that the above eye witnesses also witnessed the occurrence. Both the said aspros go to the root of the prosecution case. The third aspects, the learned Judge dealt in was that P. W. 1 has merely claimed that the 5th accused has beat the deceased only above his right hand and not specifically stated that the beating was upon the fingers of the right hand. In short to say, the learned lower appellate Judge disbelieved the version of the injured victim as well as the four eye witnesses in this case, only on the basis of the non mentioning of the above particulars and details In the F. I. R. While taking a decision so referred, it seems that the learned lower appellate Judge has also overlooked the corroboration of the medical evidence clearly spoken to by two witnesses, one who admitted and treated and the other who took the X-ray and the skiagram. ( 9 ) IT is noticed that the charges framed against all the accused were under the sections 323, 324 and 325 of IPC. The victim P. W. 1 was beaten by all the accused at about 8. ( 9 ) IT is noticed that the charges framed against all the accused were under the sections 323, 324 and 325 of IPC. The victim P. W. 1 was beaten by all the accused at about 8. 15 pm on the date of occurrence and he reached Valliyur Police Station and lodged the complaint, got. It registered and set the law in motion to investigate the whole case without any delay or laches on his part and that immediately he was sent to the hospital with a medical memo where he was treated and examined by the medicos as was rightly discussed and decided by the learned trial Magistrate. There was enough motive for the accused to join, together, indulge in perpetrating violence against the revision petitioner. The overt acts of each of the accused were specifically spoken to by P. W. 1 the victim and fully corroborated by the accounting of not one ocular witness, but more than three apart from the support and substantiation of the medical evidence. The three limbs which a prosecution is required to prove as above referred to have been clearly made available in this case. It is in this context very difficult to disbelieve the version of P. W. 1 the victim who sustained grievous and simple injuries at the hands of the accused and has come forward to speak about the same and accordingly he did so. That was also corroborated by the independent witnesses not One in number but more than three. The evkleoce of the doctor who treated the injured for the injuries sustained also is totally on par with the accounting of P. W. 1. However, Unfortunately rather, the learned lower appellate Judge over looked all these said aspects and merely placed reliance upon the non mentioning of the said details In the F. I. R. which was given within an hour from the time of occurrence. ( 10 ) IT is well settled by now by the Courts of law often and were repeatedly that the registering of an F. I. R with all its contents at the earliest point of time is expected to set the law in motion without any delay and as such It is one of the basis of material evidence and that therefore, it is not an encyclopaedia of the whole case to contain each and every minor details. Though not the names of the eye witnesses has been referred to, the investigating officer seems to have examined all the witnesses without any possible delay and recorded their statements and nothing was made out in the case records to show that they are to be discredited and disbelieved except the fact that their names with the respective over acts have not been set out clearly in the F. I. R. In the context of the above settled position, placing reliance upon the said non mentioning of their names and details the conclusion and the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in acquitting the three accused viz. , accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are totally not called for and reasonable and unjustifiable though very materials placed before the Court or courts of law by and on behalf of the prosecution to bring home all their guilt. For the reason of over looking the accounting of P. W. 1 the victim, supported by the independent witnesses and corroborated by the medicos, I am of the firm view that the learned Addi. Sessions Judge has clearly missed the correct legal track in assessing the legal value of the materials and the evidence placed before the court of law and thus has given an erroneous finding which is liable to be interfered with. In this regard, after having gone through the entire gamut of the case and the available judgments rendered by the courts of law, I find that the various reasonings given by the learned trial Magistrate has to be perused in its proper perspective and as provided by the settled law, which the learned lower appellate Judge has not done so. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal made by the learned lower appellate Judge is liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, on the admitted facts and circumstances and by virtue of sub clause (3) of Sec. 401 of Cr. P. C. , I am not impressed to dispose of this case on merits. For the reasons given above I feel that the said sub clause (3) of the section is a clear for disposing this revision accordingly. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, on the admitted facts and circumstances and by virtue of sub clause (3) of Sec. 401 of Cr. P. C. , I am not impressed to dispose of this case on merits. For the reasons given above I feel that the said sub clause (3) of the section is a clear for disposing this revision accordingly. However, in the context of my specific finding that the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned lower appellate Judge is clearly illegal and improper, I am fully constrained to set aside the same, but, in the interest of justice, I feel that the whole case has to be remitted back to the lower appellate Judge to re appraise the entire gamut of the case in the light of the directions and the points referred to above. ( 12 ) WHILE dealing with the scope of 5. 405 of the Cr. P. C. (before the Act was amended) Learned Single Judge of this Court had the occasion to deal with the same in a similar revision case and observed as follows: -(Raja Goundan, In re, It is no doubt true that the principles of autre feis acquit enacted in section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been held applicable even so cases of statutory acquittal under Sections 247, 248, 345 and 494 of the Code. The word tried or trial has not been defined anywhere and in cases tried as summons cases without framing any charge, the trial might be said to occurrence with the issue of noticed to the accused and when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate. But even in such cases before it could be said that a trial has commenced, the Court should have taken cognizance of a complaint and should have issued process for the accused to appear. Where a complaint has been dismissed even at the stage of an enquiry under section 202 of the Code and the stage of issue of process to the accused has not reached, it cannot be said that such a dismissal will be a bar to a fresh trial of the accused within the meaning of section 403 of the Code. Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate the dismissal of a part of a complaint and holding an enquiry about the truth of the remaining part. Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate the dismissal of a part of a complaint and holding an enquiry about the truth of the remaining part. A dismissal of a complaint can be made only under section 203 of the Code and it is improper to dismiss a complaint even in part when the enquiry under section 202 is still pending. It is no doubt true that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 439 of the Code is not to be lightly exercised when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal. But where the facts disclose that the acquittal is manifestly illegal and requires to be corrected the High Court will not hesitate to interfere to set right a glaring defect in procedure or a manifest error of law leading to miscarriage of justice. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in Chinnaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, has observed as follows: It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the state may thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub section (4) or S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not cover the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot its if directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Some cases of this kind however may be indicated, which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding, of acquittal in revision. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Some cases of this kind however may be indicated, which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding, of acquittal in revision. These cases may be; where the trial has no jurisdiction to by the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, to where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the Law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of section 439 (4 ). Where the appeal Court wrongly ruled out evidence which was admissible, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in revision, so that the evidence may be re appraised after taking into account the evidence which was wrongly ruled oat as inadmissible. But the High Court should confined itself only to the admissibility of the evidence and should not go further and appraise the evidence also. Two contingencies arise in such case as to the nature of the order to be passed. In the first place there may be an acquittal by the Trial court. In such a case if the High Court is justified, on principles enunciated above, to interfere with the order of acquittal in revision, the only course open to it is to set aside the acquittal and send the case back to the trial court for retrial. But there may be another type of case, namely, where the trial court has convicted the accused while the appeal court has acquittal him. But there may be another type of case, namely, where the trial court has convicted the accused while the appeal court has acquittal him. In such a case, if the conclusion of the High Court is that the order of the appeal court must be set aside, the question arises whether the appeal court should be ordered to re bear the appeal after admitting the statement it had ruled out or whether there should necessarily be are trial. So far as this is concerned, it is open to the High Court to take either of the two courses. It may order a retrial or it may order the appeal court to re hear the appeal. It will depend upon the facts of each case whether the High Court would order the appeal court to re hear the appeal or would order a re trial by the trial Court. Where the entire evidence is there and it was the appeal court which ruled out the evidence that had been admitted by the trial court, the proper course is to send back the appeal or hearing to the appeal court. In such the order of the trial court would stand subject to the decision of the appeal court on rehearing. T ( 14 ) THUS, this court as well as the Supreme Court have categorically laid down the legal ratio that on identifying the manifest illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the appeal court ignoring the flow of evidence recorded and accepted by the trial court, required to be corrected by the High Court and to set right the glaring defect in the procedure or the manifest error of over looking the totality of the evidence accepted by the trial court, in the context of the said sub clause (3) of Sec. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction can set aside the judgment passed by the appeal court acquitting the accused and order to re hear the same on the basis of the same evidence adduced and recorded already. Applying the said ratio in the instant case, I am of the firm view that overlooking or ignoring the evidence of P. W. 1 the victim in this case who has sustained more that 6 injuries at the hands of the accused which is corroborated fully by the medical evidence and the overlooking the totality bf the ocular witnesses more than one in number are themselves clearly come within the limit provided by the Supreme Court which goes to the root of the matter and consequently I am of the firm view that P. W. 1 the complainant is at very serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice is being identified. For the reason that the whole, evidence has been placed before the court and has been recorded already, I do not propose to have a second trial by remitting back to the trial court again. Enough for me at this stage to mention that the matter has to be sent to the lower appellate court for re hearing and then to dispose of the case according to law and in the light of the observations made above. The Bar for the respondents have no say in this matter probably for the reason that the view taken by the learned lower appellate Judge was not in accordance with the well settled judicial norms. ( 15 ) IN the result, for all the foregoing reasons, the revision stands allowed and consequently the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Cr1. Appeal No. 142 of 1991 dated 4. 8. 1992 is hereby set aside. However, under the circumstances and the facts established, the whole matter is remitted back to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, to re hear the matter in the light of the points referred above and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Revision allowed.