Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The son of the deceased Dwarika Mahto has filed the revision application against the judgement dated 30th September, 92 passes Sessions Trial no. 638/90 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif by which he has acquitted the opposite party nos.1 to 5 of the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 302/149, 307/149 and 380 I.P.C. 2. The informant Dulli Mahto resident of village Kathrahi, P.S. Asthawan, District Nalanda lodged a fard beyan on 3.2.73 at about 9.30 A.M. at Asthawan Government Dispensary before the Officer Incharge of Asthawan Police Station, namely, Hirdayanand Singh (P.W. 14) wherein he alleged that in the night of 2nd & 3rd February, 1973 he alongwith his sons Shiban Mahto @ Shivnandan Mahto (P.W. 7), Dwarika Mahto (deceased), grandsons Rajendra Prasad (P.W.4) son Shivnandan Mahto and Ram Bilas Prasad (P.W.2) son of Dwarika Mahto, who is petitioner in this application, was sleeping at his Baithka where a lantern was burning. At about mid night all of them woke up due to barking of Dogs and then he went to attend the call of nature and after attending the call of nature he came back to sleep at his bed. After about half an hour while they were still awoke his co-villagers opposite parties Ramjee Sao armed with pistol, Binda Tanti armed with pistol, Tanik Sao armed with a Garansa, Lala Mahto (since deceased) armed with lathi and Surju Paswan armed with Bhala entered into his Baithka. Seeing them the deceased Dwarika Mahto woke up. In the mean time Binda Tanti fired at him as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, informant and his another son Shiban Mahto (P.W.7) wanted to run away on which accused Tanik gave three to four Garansa blows on the head of Shiban Mahto as a result of which he fell down. The informant started raising alarm then the opposite party Ramjee Sao fired a shot from his pistol which hit on the various parts of the body of the informant as a result of which he also fell down. In the meantime, five to six more accused armed with deadly weapons including opposite party Bisheshwar Mahto of village Isharchak armed with lathi also arrived there. His two grandsons P.W.2 Ram Bilas Pd. and P.W.4 Rajendra Prasad managed to run away from Baithka. In the meantime, five to six more accused armed with deadly weapons including opposite party Bisheshwar Mahto of village Isharchak armed with lathi also arrived there. His two grandsons P.W.2 Ram Bilas Pd. and P.W.4 Rajendra Prasad managed to run away from Baithka. Thereafter, the accused persons also left the Baithka. His injured son Shiban Mahto (P.W.7) also stated to have identified the accused persons and also he stated about the assault made to him. After an hour of the occurrence P.W.9 Ram Khelawan Mahto another son of the informant who was sleeping inside the house came there and uttered that after hearing the sound of firing he alongwith other family members rushed towards the place of occurrence but seeing the mob the miscreants fled away. He also stated that the accused persons while retreating had removed the articles from the house. 3. After the miscreants fled away the villagers arrived at the place of occurrence. The informant and his family members disclosed the names of the accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid fard beyan (Ext. 12) the Officer Incharge registered case under sections 147, 148, 324, 302 & 380 I.P.C. and after investigation of the case submitted the chargesheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and after commitment of the case the accused persons were put on that which ended in their acquittal, as stated above. 4. The defence of the accused opposite parties, in brief, was that P.W.7 Shiban Mahto is the member of a gang of the dacoits. There was dispute between him and other members regarding the distribution of booty in which his other family members received injuries which resulted into the death of Dwarika Mahto. 5. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in this case. Out of whom P.W.1 Surendra Pd., P.W.2 Ram Bilash Pd., PW.4 Rajendra Prasad, P.W.7 Shivan Mahto @ Shivnandan Mahto, P.W.9 Ram Khelawan Mahto and P.W.11 Arun Kr. are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.12 is Dr. Baleshwar Pd. Verma, who proved the postmortem report (Ext. 8) which was prepared by Dr.T.P.Singh, who died. P.W.13 Dr. Prabhas Chandra examined the injuries on the person of the informant Dulli Mahto and his son Shivnandan Mahto and P.W.14 Haridayanand Singh is the Investigating Officer, who has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Sheonandan Singh, P.W.5 Randi Mahto, P.W.6 Budhu Yadav, P.W.8 Baleshwar Pd., P.W.10 Chunni Yadav and P.W.15 Umesh Kr. P.W.13 Dr. Prabhas Chandra examined the injuries on the person of the informant Dulli Mahto and his son Shivnandan Mahto and P.W.14 Haridayanand Singh is the Investigating Officer, who has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Sheonandan Singh, P.W.5 Randi Mahto, P.W.6 Budhu Yadav, P.W.8 Baleshwar Pd., P.W.10 Chunni Yadav and P.W.15 Umesh Kr. Jha are the formal and tendered witnesses. 6. Informant Dulli Mahto died before the trial. One of the accused Lala Mahto also died before the trial. The trial court estimated the age of the opposite parties on the date of judgment i.e. 30th September, 92. The age of opposite party Binda Tanti has been estimated as seventy years, Ramjee Sao ninety years, Tanik Sao sixty years, Surju Paswan eighty years and Bisheshwar Mahto eighty years. 7. After admission of this case it was placed for hearing before the learned single judge and who by order dated 27.4.93 referred the matter to the Division Bench to decide as to whether a criminal revision application against the order of acquittal is maintainable at the instance of witness or not. Thereafter, the matter has been placed before us for a decision. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgement of the acquittal on the ground that the trial court having held that the investigation was tainted one, relied upon the material collected during the investigation to disbelieve the prosecution which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9. The counsel appearing for the Opposite parties on the other hand challenged the maintainability of the revision application as according to him the same is not maintainable at the instance of a witness. He also submitted that this Court will not re-appraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion in exercise of revisional power against an order of acquittal. The trial court has held that there was deep rooted enmity between the parties and as such there was strong motive to implicate the opposite parties. It has further held that the independent witnesses were not examined and the only source of identification, namely, the lantern was not produced. The judgment rendered by the trial court cannot be said either perverse or it has resulted in miscarriage of justice and accordingly no case for interference is made out. 10. It has further held that the independent witnesses were not examined and the only source of identification, namely, the lantern was not produced. The judgment rendered by the trial court cannot be said either perverse or it has resulted in miscarriage of justice and accordingly no case for interference is made out. 10. Two questions arise for determination in this case; firstly, as to whether at the instance of a witness a revision application is maintainable or not and secondly, as to scope and extent of the power to be exercised by this court in a revision against the acquittal. 11. Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the records of any proceeding pending before any inferior criminal court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purposes of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity or any proceeding of such inferior Court. Section 401 contains the revisional power of the High Court and it provides that the High Court can exercise the power of revision with regard to the case and the proceeding in which the records have been called for under section 397 or which comes to its knowledge otherwise. It further provides that the High Court in its discretion may exercise any of the power conferred on appellate court as enumerated in the said section. 12. Thus, section 397 only empowers the High Court to call for the records. Section 401 empowers the High Court to exercise the power of revision to find out as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by the inferior criminal court or to see as to the regularity of any proceedings of such court. The said sections do not create any right in the litigant and on the other hand it confers power the High Court to exercise the Supervisory Power to advance the cause of justice. It empowers the High Court to see that the justice is done in a case according to the recognised rule of criminal jurisprudence. It empowers High Court to see that the Subordinate Courts do not act beyond the jurisdiction vested in that in law or abuse the powers vested in them under the Code. It empowers the High Court to see that the justice is done in a case according to the recognised rule of criminal jurisprudence. It empowers High Court to see that the Subordinate Courts do not act beyond the jurisdiction vested in that in law or abuse the powers vested in them under the Code. The main idea of conferring its power on the High Court is to confer a kind of extraordinary or supervisory jurisdiction to prevent the miscarriage of justice. No doubt the revisional power under section 401 is expressed in a wider term and vests the High Court to exercise, in its discretion, the power of Court of appeal but that does not mean that the revisional jurisdiction has to be treated as an appellate jurisdiction in disguise. The Court will interfere only when there is glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on the point of law which has resulted into the flagrant miscarriage of justice. 13. The custodian of law and order is the State and the private party has no locus standi in a police case. In police case it is the State which conducts the prosecution and in case of acquittal prefers an appeal being the custodian of law and order. The informant has not been conferred any right to prefer an appeal against the acquittal in a police case. The powder of revision is vested in this Court is to prevent the miscarriage of justice. The miscarriage of justice will not only affect the State but it will also affect the private party. This Court will exercise the power of revision either suo motu or matter is being brought to its notice by any party. It is for the court to decide as to whether it is fit case for interference or not. 14. The informant or a witness or even any other person interested in the case when files a revision against acquittal before the High Court it does not file it as a matter of right. On the other hand he only brings to the notice of the High Court that its Subordinate Court has acted beyond his jurisdiction or has abused the power vested in him in exercise of jurisdiction and thereafter the High Court has to decide as to whether the case is such that requires interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On the other hand he only brings to the notice of the High Court that its Subordinate Court has acted beyond his jurisdiction or has abused the power vested in him in exercise of jurisdiction and thereafter the High Court has to decide as to whether the case is such that requires interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the informant or a witness only draws the attention of the Court about the manifest illegality and nothing else. There is no specific legal bar regarding entertainment of a revision application at the instance of informant or a witness. 15. In the case of Pratap V/s. State of U.P., 1973 S.C. 786 the question before the Apex Court was as to whether the High Court was justified in exercising the revisional power to enhance the sentence at the instance of a private party. The Apex Court held that the power under section 439 (401 of the present Code) is one which the High Court can exercise suo motu and all that a person fifing a revision petition under that section does, is to draw the Courts attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a Subordinate Court. Such powers are not affected by the fact that the revision petition is filed by a private party and not by the Government. 16. At this stage, I would like to refer a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thakur Ram & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar, 1966 S.C. 911 which has been relied upon by the counsel appearing for the opposite parties. In that case several attempts were made by the informant for committing the case to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offence under section 386 and 387 I.P.C. was made out. But the said attempt failed and lastly the revisional court ordered for committing the case to the Court of Sessions. The satd order was upheld by the High Court. Dealing with the said matter the Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the said judgement helds as follows : "In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has really no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of S. 435 under the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken ,up the matter suo motu. No doubt, the terms of S. 435 under the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken ,up the matter suo motu. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the Courts jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal Jaw is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person, who according to that party, had caused injury to It. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. In our opinion, it was injudicious for the learned Sessions Judge to order the commitment of the appellants particularly so without giving any thought to the aspects of the matter to which we have adverted. Even the High Court has come to no positive conclusions about the propriety of the direction made by the Sessions Judge and has merely said that the Sessions Judge was not unjustified in making the order which he made in each of the applications." 17. The Apex Court in that case took note of the fact that informant had made several attempts for commitment but failed but lastly succeeded and in that context observed that the informant was wrecking private vengeance against the accused in that case. The aforesaid judgement is not an authority that the revision at the instance of the private party is not maintainable. They never said that the revisional court even if finding the gross miscarriage of justice will refuse to enter in the matter only on the ground the persons who has approached is the private party. 18. Thus, I am of the view that the revision by a private party before the High Court is maintainable. The illegality etc. can be brought to the notice of the revisional court by the informant or by a witness or by any other interested person in the litigation and it is for the revisional court to decide as to whether the revisional power is to be exercised or not to prevent miscarriage of justice. The illegality etc. can be brought to the notice of the revisional court by the informant or by a witness or by any other interested person in the litigation and it is for the revisional court to decide as to whether the revisional power is to be exercised or not to prevent miscarriage of justice. There is no fetter in exercise of the power of the High Court in a case where a matter is moved by a private party. 19. In this case admittedly the informant is dead. The son of the deceased has filed the revision application. Thus, the revision application at his instance is maintainable against the order of acquittal. 20. The revisional power against the order of acquittal at the instance of the private party is to be exercised with great care and caution only in cases where there is flagrant miscarriage of justice. The revisional Court has no power to alter the order of acquittal into an order of conviction. It can only remit the matter to the trial Court. In such a situation there is every likelihood of the dice being loaded against the accused inspite of the observation of the revisional Court to the lower Court not to be influenced by the opinion made while making remand. The power is to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on the point of law. as a result of which there is flagrant miscarriage of justice. 21. In the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 1962 S.C. 1788, the Apex Court in paragraph 7 of the judgement held as follows : "It is true that it is open to High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of 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 there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of section 439 forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may however indicate some causes of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has till acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. This and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439(4). We have therefore to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles." 22. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Bansi Lal and Ors. We have therefore to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles." 22. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Bansi Lal and Ors. V/s. Laxman Singh, 1986 S.C. 1721 wherein it has been held that it is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial Court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused. The same view has again been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Kaptan Singh & Ors. V/s. State of M.P. & anoth., (1997) 6 S.C.C. 185 . The Apex Court has also held that in a revision against the acquittal the revisional court cannot re-appraise the evidence as the Court of appeal. In this connection a reference may be made to the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh V/s. Sarju Singh & another, 1968 S.C. 707 wherein it was held that the High Court cannot re-appraise the evidence as if it was hearing an appeal. Again in the case of Pakalapati Narayan Gajapathi Raju & Ors. V/s. Bonapalli Peda Appadu & anoth., 1975 S.C. 1854, the Apex Court held that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has not appreciated the evidence properly. 23. Thus this Court will interfere with an order of acquittal only if it is found that there is manifest illegality in the procedure or there is flagrant violation of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. The ground which has been enumerated by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases is illustrative and not exhaustive. The categorisation or compartmentalisation of the ground to interfere with the order of acquittal is not possible. The facts of each case has to be considered to find out as to whether a proper case for interference against an order of acquittal is made out or not. 24. In this case, the occurrence took place 26 years back. Most of the opposite parties are at the fag end of their life as mentioned above. The facts of each case has to be considered to find out as to whether a proper case for interference against an order of acquittal is made out or not. 24. In this case, the occurrence took place 26 years back. Most of the opposite parties are at the fag end of their life as mentioned above. From perusal of the judgement of the trial court it appears that the lengthy judgement written by the trial court has resulted into contradictory finding but reading the judgement as a whole it appears that the trial court after having gone through the evidence in detail has acquitted the opposite parties after taking into consideration the deep rooted enmity, non-examination of the independent witnesses, non-production of the lantern in court, which was stated to be the source of identification, and other relevant factors. 25. Even if two views are possible in this case, in my view, it is not a fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal in revision after such a long time. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. I.P.Singh, J. 26 I agree.