JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is complainant against the accused-respondents Ram Singh and Vishal has come up by way of this revision petition against the finding of acquittal of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badi dated 31.10.1994 recorded in Criminal Case No. 164/ 1987 acquitting the accused-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charge punishable under Sections 323 & 341, IPC. The petitioner had lodged FIR. On 18.3.1987 vide FIR No. 41 /1987 which was registered with Police Station Sarmathura against the accused-respondents with the allegation that his agriculture fields are adjoining to that of the accused-respondents and there is no alternative passage available to the petitioner-complainant except the fields of accused-respondents for passing through and whenever he passes through the fields of the accused-respondents, he is not permitted to do so resulting in great harassment and inconvenience to the petitioner. It is in this context when the complainant (petitioner) was making an attempt of passing through the fields of the accused-respondents on 16.3.1987 when the Holi festival was being celebrated, he was being assaulted by lathi blows by the accused, resulting in receiving injuries on his person for which he was medically examined by Dr. Shiv Dayal Mangal (PW 8). 2. From the perusal of the injury sheet, it is apparent that the injuries were caused by a blunt object and were simple in nature. Though, the version of the complainant-petitioner has been corroborated by the evidence of PW 3 Prabhu and PW 4 Kalyan Singh, yet the learned Trial Court in its wisdom did not think it proper to convict the accused-respondents keeping in view the fact that both the parties i.e., members of the complainant party and members of the respondents party had involved themselves in free fight and contemporaneous First Information Reports were registered against each other FIR No. 241 /1987 was registered for offences under Sections 341 & 323/34, IPC against accused Ram Singh and Vishal and the prosecution filed the challan against the said accused for offences under Sections 323 and 341, IPC before the concerned Trial Court. The prosecution in its defence filed the list of 9 prosecution witnesses who were examined by the Trial Court. 3. The prosecution in its defence filed the list of 9 prosecution witnesses who were examined by the Trial Court. 3. The Trial Court recorded a positive finding to the effect that accused Prabhu and Kalyan Singh were the aggressors who launched the attack and hence in view of the evidence led by the prosecution since, no positive role has been attributed to accused-respondents Ram Singh and Vishal hence, they deserve the benefit of doubt and were accordingly acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 31.10.1994 against which, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. During the course of hearing, I am informed by Mr. Anil Jain, learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner that FIR No. 39/1987 for offences under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 325 and 341, IPC was registered with Police Station Sarmathura against the complainant-petitioner at the instance of the accused-respondents; Ram Singh and Vishal pursuant to which, the charge-sheet was filed against the complainant-petitioner and the proceedings before the Trial Court resulted in conviction of the complainant for the said offences against which, he has already preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, however, the fate of that appeal is not known to the complainant. Be that as it may, the scope of revisional powers as regards its exercise by this Court is limited. Section 4111(3), Cr.P.C. stipulates that "nothing in this section shi71 be denied to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction". Be that as it may, the scope of revisional powers as regards its exercise by this Court is limited. Section 4111(3), Cr.P.C. stipulates that "nothing in this section shi71 be denied to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction". This obviously implies that the High Court should not lightly interfere with the finding of acquittal as recorded by the Trial Court unless some glaring omissions either in the matter of recording of evidence by the Trial Court has occurred or there is some jurisdictional error which is of such nature so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401(3), Cr.P.C. I am further of the view that revisional jurisdiction should he 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 which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of K. Chinnasruamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, AIR 1962 SC 1788 , ratio of which has again been affirmed by the Apex Court in the matter of Kishan Swaroop v. Government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 1998 SC990=IV (1997) CCR 147 (SC) , wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the case of. a private party in appeal preferred against the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, has observed that private party has no right to file a case instituted upon a police report merely by obtaining formal permission of Public Prosecutor and would by itself not entitle him to such a right. The Apex Court has further observed, as under: "It was the primary responsibility of the State to file appeal/revision and therefore no criminal revision in respect of an order which is appealable at the instance of the State could /should be entertained without the requisite permission of the Public Prosecutor. In drawing the above inference the High Court failed to notice that if the Code of Criminal Procedure did not empower a private party to file a revision petition against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted on a police report a formal permission of the Public Prosecutor would not entitle him to do so. In drawing the above inference the High Court failed to notice that if the Code of Criminal Procedure did not empower a private party to file a revision petition against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted on a police report a formal permission of the Public Prosecutor would not entitle him to do so. To put it differently, a Public Prosecutor cannot vest a private party with a right which it has not got under the Code." 5. I am of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court are fully attracted to this case and moreover, since it is a case of group fight where both the parties have equally participated in the occurrence and there are contemporaneous FIRs filed by both the parties against each other, it is impossible to hold that as to who was the actual aggressor. Moreover, the findings of acquittal as recorded by the learned Trial Court in its impugned judgment don't call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.Revision dismissed. *******