JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher in Anurag Vidhya Mandir, Nangal Rajavatan, District Dausa against the accused respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and under Section 3(1 )(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for short "the Act of 1989" regarding an incident which took place on 22.9.1997. 2. The brief facts of the case are that some students belonging to SC/ST category who are receiving education in the aforesaid school had gone to take water from Hand Pump near the Temple of Gopalji. The students of the said school were generally prevented from taking water for drinking purposes from the said Handpump for the reason that they belong to SC/ST Caste by accused-respondent No. 2 who belongs to a different caste. As a result of the above incident, some altercations ensued between the students and accused-respondent resulting in complainant-petitioner sustaining some injuries on his person and as a consequence thereof an FIR was registered at the local police on 24.9.1997 by the complainant while the date of occurrence is reported to be of 22.9.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned CJM Dausa who after detailed orders dismissed the same vide order dated 25.7.1998 (impugned in revision). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and examined the finding recorded by the trial Court whereby, the trial court on the basis of the evidence recorded before it had taken the prima-facie view that the accused are not guilty of the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The finding of the trial Court which deserves to be highlighted in the instant case is that the version of the complainant as regards the injuries suffered by him is not supported by any independent evidence. The fact on the record is that PW 4 Paras Ram and PW 7 Laxman Singh who are independent witnesses and who were present at the time of occurrence have not supported the version of the complainant. The complainant had not led any evidence in support of his version as regards the offence committed at the behest of the accused. Consequently, the trial court did not hold the accused guilty of offence by recording a positive findings giving benefit of doubt to the accused. 4. The complainant had not led any evidence in support of his version as regards the offence committed at the behest of the accused. Consequently, the trial court did not hold the accused guilty of offence by recording a positive findings giving benefit of doubt to the accused. 4. Prima-facie, I do not find any justification to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. which mandates that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be exercised in each and every case and these powers should be exercised sparingly unless, there is an apparent illegality on the face of the order passed by the trial court which has neither appreciated the evidence on the record nor has examined the case in its true perspective resulting in gross miscarriage of justice to the accused. But, in the instant case, I do not find any gross miscarriage of justice, or any illegality having been committed by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence which was led before it by the complainant in support of his case. Hence, I am of the view that the finding of trial Court giving benefit of doubt to the accused is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala v. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc. with Managing Director, Western India Plywoods v. Puthumana Illath jathavedan Namboodiri : 1991(1) JT 456 , wherein, the Apex Court had held that the revisional power of the High Court cannot be compared with the power of Appellate Court nor can be treated as second appellate jurisdiction. 5. As a result of above discussion, this revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******