JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant') has preferred this appeal assailing the order of acquittal of the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'accused persons') passed by the learned,Judicial Magistrate, Second Class. Bhadrak in ICC No. 361 of 1985. 2. The short facts, as borne out from the complaint petition, as also the evidence, is that on 1.10.1985 the' complainant while returning home from Manjuri Road along with some other villagers, heard sound of cutting trees emanating from his 'bari', situated in mouza Bandalo. He entertained doubt that some miscreants might be committing the mischief. So, he along with his co-villagers entered inside the said bari and found two bamboos lying being cut and another bamboo on the verge of being removed by the accused person. He immediately caught hold of the said bamboos, whereupon the accused persons leaving the bamboos made good their escape. The complainant then lodged a written report at Manjuri Road Outpost. But as the police did not take any action, he approached the Court, and filed the complaint. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial and false implication. 4. On the above accusation charge was framed u/s 379/34, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons arid the complainant in order to bring home the said charge examined a witnesses, including himself. Learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence was not inclined to place reliance on the same and consequently by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons and it is against that order of acquittal the present appeal is filed. 5. On the date of hearing counsel engaged by the accused persons did not appear to support the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel for the complainant in course of argument contended that the accusations made against the accused persons having been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the independent witnesses and the discrepancies appearing in their evidence being minor in nature, the learned Magistrate should have arrived at the conclusion of guilt of the accused persons and convicted them of the offence with which they stood charged. Since the acquittal of the accused persons and convicted them of the offence with which they stood charged. Since the acquittal of the accused persons and convicted them of the offence with which they stood charged. Since the acquittal of the accused persons has resulted in fragrant miscarriage of justice, it would be within the competence of this Court sitting in appeal to scan the evidence independently and record a verdict of guilt against the accused persons. 6. Scope of power of the High Court in the matter of appeal against an order of acquittal has been stated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup and Others vs. King Emperor and reaffirmed and approved by the Supreme Court in a series of judicial pronouncements, as under: Sections 417, 118 and 423 of the Code (old code) give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this however is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice. In Sanwat Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan their Lordships summarised the legal position as under: 1. An appellate Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded: 2. In Sanwat Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan their Lordships summarised the legal position as under: 1. An appellate Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded: 2. The principles laid down in Sheo Swarup and Others vs. King Emperor afforded a correct guide for the appellate Court's approach to a case disposing of such an appeal; 3.The different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court such as: (a) substantial and compelling reasons'; (b) good and sufficiently cogent reasons'; (c) strong reasons' are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, but in doing so, it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal, but should express the reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. 7. Keeping in view the test laid down by the Supreme Court as aforesaid, I have scrutinised the evidence of the complainant to find out whether the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs to be reversed. It would appear from the impugned judgment that the learned Magistrate while scanning the evidence of the P. Ws. noticed certain discrepancies which, in his opinion, affected the substratum of the prosecution case. Thus he was not inclined to place reliance on the same. Complainant P.W. 1 while in his examination-in-chief stated that no sooner he entered inside the bari, he found all the accused persons were about to leave the place carrying one bamboo on their shoulder. But during cross-examination he made certain improvements in his evidence, in as much as he stated that when he arrived at the spot he found the accused persons engaged in cutting bamboos. Similarly the evidence of P. Ws. But during cross-examination he made certain improvements in his evidence, in as much as he stated that when he arrived at the spot he found the accused persons engaged in cutting bamboos. Similarly the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is discrepant in material particulars in that according to P.W. 2 there was only one bamboo clump on the southern side of the bari wherefrom 3 bamboos had been cut by the accused persons, where as P.W. 3 would say that there were in total 4 to 5 bamboo clumps on the southern side of the bari and that from one of those bamboo clumps, 3 bamboos had been cut. These two witnesses P.W. 2 and 3, according to the complainant, were eye-witnesses who had accompanied him to the bari and had witnessed the incident. All these discrepancies which were taken note of by the learned Magistrate, are, in my opinion major discrepancies in a case of this nature which go to the root of the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, I would hold that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal being based on appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse requiring interference by this Court in exercise of appellate power. 8. In the result, appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed