Judgment P. K. Sarin, J. 1. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 09-05-1988 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Khagaria in G. R.617/82/tr.675/88 whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted Opposite Party No.2 of the charges under Sections 379 and 420 of the I. P. C. 2. The prosecution case against accused Opposite Party No.2 was that he stole the bilty sent by B. B. Shah and company, Palimarwar (Rajasthan) to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Jamalpur, Gogri to be delivered to one Gopalram Agrawal of pipralatif. The bilty was sent by registered post. It was alleged that the said bilty was not received in the bank and the Branch Manager of the Bank after enquiry from the Transport Agency came to know that a wrong person has received the said bilty. It was alleged that from the handwriting on the said bilty, the same was found to be of the accused Opposite Party No.2. It was further alleged that the accused confessed his guilt in writing in presence of the staff of the Bank. The report was lodged with the Police by the Branch manager of the State Bank of India jamalpur Gogri Branch. After investiga-tion Police submitted chargesheet inst accused Opposite Party No.2 he was tried. 3. Seven witnesses were examined of the prosecution in support of the prosecution case. Out of which P. W.1 was only formal witness who had proved the formal F. I. R. Exhibit-1. Three prosecution witnesses were the staff members of the said Branch while P. W.6 was the Branch Manager of the Agricultural Development State Bank of India. He was the informant of the case. The aforesaid staff members of the Bank and the Branch Manager stated about the confessional statement made in writing by the accused in their presence. In the statement of the witnesses, the procedure through which the papers passed through in the Bank was found turn out. The accused denied to have made any confessional statement voluntarily and stated that this confessional statement was not got written by him but by the branch Manager and other staff members of the Bank under duress and coercion for which he had also filed the report with the Police. 4. The accused denied to have made any confessional statement voluntarily and stated that this confessional statement was not got written by him but by the branch Manager and other staff members of the Bank under duress and coercion for which he had also filed the report with the Police. 4. The learned Magistrate found that the material exhibit in this case was not produced and the original builty was not produced before the Court. The learned Magistrate further stated that there was no evidence regarding the theft of the builty by the accused. The learned Magistrate further observed that the process through which the builty has passed as stated by PWs.6 and 7 gives no chance to a canteen boy to steal it. The learned Magistrate found the confessional statement to be not worthy of reliance and accepted the defence version. Accordingly, the learned magistrate found that the prosecution had not succeeded to bring home the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the accused Opposite Party No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the informant of this case has preferred this criminal revision application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Court ought to have relied upon the confessional statement and the learned magistrate should not have ignored it merely on the statement of accused that it was obtained by duress and coercion when prosecution witnesses have proved the said statement to have been made voluntarily by the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Apex court in the case of Piara Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 supreme Court 2274, wherein it has been held that law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. In that case the extra-judicial confession was proved by an independent witness. In that case, the Court held that the Sec-sions Judge was not justified to disbelieve the evidence of such witness when the extra-judicial confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence. That decision relates to criminal appeal where reappraisal of evidence is permitted. In the present case, we are concerned with a revision by a private party against the order of acquittal. 6. That decision relates to criminal appeal where reappraisal of evidence is permitted. In the present case, we are concerned with a revision by a private party against the order of acquittal. 6. The Apex Court in the case of pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others V/s. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1854, has held that the revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal can be exercised only in exceptional cases wherein interest of public justice require interference for the correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. It has been observed that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. 7. In the case of Bansi Lal and others V/s. Laxman Singh, AIR 1986 supreme Court 1721, the Apex Court has held the revisional power of the high Court to set aside the order of acquittal should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. It was observed that the mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may in the opinion of the high Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing the retrial of the accused. It is further observed that even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. 8. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it is now well settled that the High Courts power of revision cannot be exercised merely on the ground that the trial Court has misap-preciated the evidence or that a different view on proper appreciation would be possible. In the present case, the matter is only of appreciation of evidence and the order of the acquittal cannot be set aside on the ground of misappreciation of evidence by the trial court. Therefore, there does not appear to be any ground to interfere with the order in revision. The criminal revision application is dismissed, accordingly. Revision Dismissed.