JUDGMENT 1. - Sriram Complainant has challenged the acquittal of the non-petitioners of the offence under section 436 IPC in a criminal case No. 10/92 instituted on a police report. 2. The brief facts are that the complainant-petitioner lodged a FIR (Ex.R 2) at police station Chirawa on 23.10.91 with the allegations that he has a rented shop at village-Sari, he resides at Sulthana and daily comes to his shop in the morning. During the night intervening 22.10.91 and 23.10.91 the non-petitioners/accused set the shop on fire as a result of which all his articles lying inside the shop burnt to ashes. On this report the police registered a case and started investigation. After investigation a challan was filed and the accused/non- petitioners were charged with an offence under section 436 IPC. After trial the learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused was not seen by the complainant while committing the act of mischief of fire and the two witnesses namely Dharampal and Lichman Ram, who are alleged to have been witnessed the accused setting the shop on fire were not worthy of belief. He, therefore, recorded an order of acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners/accused at the very outset raised an objection that this revision petition at the instance of the complainant is not maintainable. It was a case instituted upon a police report. The revision has been filed by the complainant. The State does not appear to have filed an appeal against the acquittal. Such a revision, at the instance of a private person, is not maintainable. He relied on Kishan Swaroop v. Govt, of NCT of Delhi (1998 Cr.L.J. 1409) . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that when the State did not choose to file an appeal and there would be miscarriage of justice if the complainant did not file the revision petition, the court must exercise its discretion and decide the revision on merits. 5. Regarding the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the revision petition, it may be stated that there is no dispute that this revision petition has been filed by a private person. It is also not in dispute that the case in which the non-petitioners were acquitted was a case instituted upon a police report. 5. Regarding the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the revision petition, it may be stated that there is no dispute that this revision petition has been filed by a private person. It is also not in dispute that the case in which the non-petitioners were acquitted was a case instituted upon a police report. In Kishan Swaroops case the Apex Court held that private party has no right to file a revision petition in a case instituted upon a police report against acquittal. 6. The Apex Court also referred to the observations made by it in Chinnaswamy Reddys case ( AIR 1962 SC 1788 ), I may quote the above observation : "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set-aside an order of acquittal even at the instance or private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when where is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice." 7. A perusal of the above observations and the ratio as held in Kishan Swaroops case, there could be no doubt that a revision petition against the acquittal at the instance of a private party in a case instituted upon police report is not maintainable. But court can, in exceptional cases like manifest error on a point of law, interfere with an order of acquittal. Hence I sustain the objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. Even on merits, there is no force in the revision petition. The whole prosecution case hinged on the testimony of Lichman Ram and Dharampal. The learned Sessions Judge after referring to the statements observed that since both the witnesses reside in different village, it would not possible that they were present at the place of occurrence in the night. Moreover their conduct was unworthy of belief. If the witnesses had actually seen the accused committing the above mischief, they would have raised an alarm and taken some steps to apprehend the accused at the place of occurrence. It appears that except allegedly seeing the accused persons committing the above offence they did nothing. It is against human conduct. Moreover their conduct was unworthy of belief. If the witnesses had actually seen the accused committing the above mischief, they would have raised an alarm and taken some steps to apprehend the accused at the place of occurrence. It appears that except allegedly seeing the accused persons committing the above offence they did nothing. It is against human conduct. The Sessions Judge has, therefore, correctly brushed aside the testimony of these two witnesses. If the testimony of these witnesses is excluded from consideration the whole prosecution case topples down. The learned Sessions Judge has also indicated the possibility that the fire broke out as a result of short circuit in electric wires. There was telltale evidence suggesting the possibility of such an eventuality. 8. For the above reasons I dont find any substance in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******