D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) ). Chhanabhai Punjabhai Prajapati, the original complainant, who is now no more, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19/05/1983, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narol, in Criminal case No. 907 of 1982, had preferred the present Revision Application. By the impugned order of acquittal, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence under Secs. 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal code. The present Revision Application was filed through Mr. Justice J. M. Panchal, when he was an Advocate. ( 2 ) ). On elevation of Mr. Justice Panchal to the Bench, a notice was caused to issue to the petitioner informing him that his Advocate has become the High Court judge and as such he should appoint another Advocate in the matter or to remain present before the Court, etc. The notice could not be served on the petitioner. It is now reported that the petitioner has died on 24/03/1991. Necessary death certificate is produced along with the statement of the son of the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the petitioner died on 24/03/1991. ( 3 ) ). The question arose whether the present revision application would abate due to death of the petitioner. Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to abatement of appeals. It provides that every appeal under Sec. 377 or Sec. 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. Every other appeal, except an appeal from a sentence of fine, shall finally abate on the death of the appellant, provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relative may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate. ( 4 ) ). In the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Khedu Mohton and Ors. ( 4 ) ). In the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Khedu Mohton and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 66 , the Supreme Court has ruled that once an appeal against an acquittal is entertained by the High Court, it becomes the duty of the high Court to decide the same irrespective of the fact that the appellant either does not choose to prosecute it or is unable to prosecute it for one reason or the other. In other words, in such circumstances, the High Court has to decide the appeal against the order of acquittal on merits and in accordance with the law, even in the absence of the appellant. Appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only abate on the death of the accused and not otherwise. Applying this ratio, the present Revision Application cannot be said to have abated. Therefore, the present revision Application requires to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with the law. ( 5 ) ). The deceased petitioner and the respondent-accused resided nearby. The petitioner had purchased a building from the father of the accused. An incident took place at about 5-00 to 6-00 p. m. on 19/03/1982, when the accused was cutting a Neem tree allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prevented the accused from causing damage to the tree, resulting in altercation between the petitioner and the accused. It is alleged that the accused thereupon started abusing and gave a blow with spade on the head of the petitioner. Petitioner lodged the complaint and on conclusion of the investigation of the complaint, the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Secs. 324 and 504 of the Indian penal Code. ( 6 ) ). Charge Exh. 9 for the aforesaid offences, when read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on appreciation thereof, came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused was not brought home and finally ordered to acquit him for the offence under Secs. 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) ). The learned Magistrate, inter alia, held that there were no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. There was scuffle between the complainant and the accused. 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) ). The learned Magistrate, inter alia, held that there were no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. There was scuffle between the complainant and the accused. The intention to cause grievous hurt to the complainant could not be attributed to the accused. Though independent witnesses could be available, no such witness was examined by the prosecution. On going through the record and the impugned judgment, there is no material irregularity or manifest error or illegality so as to interfere with the order of acquittal. The approach of the trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record cannot be said to be illegal or improper. It is settled position that the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal, unless the grave illegality is manifest in the impugned order of acquittal or the finding recorded therein is perverse. There is no such case. The learned magistrate has rightly concluded that the guilt of the accused cannot be said to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 8 ) ). In the above premises, there is no substance in the petition. The petition, therefore, stands rejected. Rule discharged. .