(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) HEARD counsel. (3) THE facts reveal that the appellant was prosecuted on the allegation that he sold "ghee" which was adulterated. The defence of the accused was that he sold vanaspati ghee only and the evidence of the Public Analyst also shows that the sample contained not less than 91% of hydrogenated vegetable oil. The learned Judge in the trial court convicted the appellant holding that the ghee that he sold was adulterated. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal has pointed out that in the local market, vanaspati oil is sometimes referred to as "dalda" and in the countryside as "ghee". He also points out that PW 1 did not care to ascertain from the accused what type of ghee he was selling. PW 1 had further admitted that he had merely pointed out the jar in which the commodity was stored and had demanded that commodity which was sold to him. PW 4 claimed that the commodity in the bottle belonged to him and it was dalda ghee. His evidence further is that dalda is referred to as ghee in the locality and that fact was not contested by the prosecution. If on this line of reasoning the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, we think this was not a fit case for the suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction and issuing an order for retrial. Where two views are reasonably possible and the court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the High Court should be slow in interfering in exercise of revisional jurisdiction suo motu. This was not a situation where the case for the prosecution was so strong that one could say that the decision of the learned Sessions Judge was thoroughly perverse and against the weight of evidence. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Sessions Judge. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.