JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge acquitting the accused of the offences with which he was charged. 2. The accused was tried for the charges mentioned against him in the judgment and the learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record recorded the finding of acquittal by the impugned order. It is this order which is assailed in the present revision petition on the grounds mentioned in the revision petition. 3. The position in criminal jurisprudence in relation to acquittal is established since Iong. Our jurisprudence which is Anglosaxon Jurisprudence, believes in innocence of the accused till he is found guilty of charges framed against him beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution or the complainant, as the case may be and wherever there is failure on the part of the Prosecuting Agency to discharge this burden, according to law, acquittal should ensure. 4. It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence in India that this presumption of acquittal is further fortified by an order of acquittal recorded by a learned Judge of competent jurisdiction on proper appreciation of evidence on record to assess which he had best opportunity. 5. I have in Om Prakash v. Chhotelal & Anr., Criminal Revision No. 365/93, decided on 12.2.1998, considered the situation of interfering in revisional jurisdiction in the matters of acquittals recorded by the trial Judge. After noticing several judgments of the Supreme Court of India on the point, I took a view that normally there should be no interference in a revision petition against acquittal unless it is established that the order of acquittal is palpably wrong and the findings of acquittal are so perverse as to shock the conscious of the reasonably prudent man. 6. According to me, therefore, powers of the High Court, to deal with acquittal in a revision petition against the order of acquittal, are certainly circumscribed by the provisions of Section 401. 6. According to me, therefore, powers of the High Court, to deal with acquittal in a revision petition against the order of acquittal, are certainly circumscribed by the provisions of Section 401. I am also firmly of the opinion that what has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India in relation to appeal against the acquittal applies rnutatis mutandis to revisions against the acquittals and therefore, unless the order of acquittal is palpably wrong, the findings of not guilty are perverse, and also the reasoning for reaching that conclusion are unsustainable in law, no interference by this Court against the acquittal is possible in revision against acquittal. Hence, this revision fails and is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******