Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. The informant is the petitioner against a judgment of acquittal dated 3-9-93, passed by Mr. Gajendra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, in GR No. 2401/89 (Trial No. 136/93) State of Bihar V/s. Rajendra Paswan and 12 Ors., whereby the accused-opposite party herein have been acquitted of the charges under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 149, 324/149 and 337/149, I.P.C., and opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 have in addition been acquitted under Sec. 380 of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3-11-89 at about 2,30 a.m. the accused-persons while ploughing their field and annexed the ridge belonging to the informant. In the morning of 3-11-89, at about 6 a.m., on the field itself, there was a verbal duel between the informant and the opposite party herein, whereafter according to the prosecution case, the informant and others ran to their residence to save themselves from the assault of the accused-persons. The prosecution party were assaulted by the accused-persons in front of the residence of the informant, whereafter opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 herein had stormed into the house of the informant and taken away a box containing jewellery and other items. The accused-persons were charge-sheeted the prosecution party examined 12 witnesses in support of their case including the doctor who had treated both sides. The defence did not examine any witness. After a full length trial, the trial Court had been pleased to acquit the accused-persons of all the charges. Hence, the present revision application at the instance of the informant with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to the trial Court. 3. While assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of misdirection. It is submitted that overlooking the prosecution case the trial Court has come out with a different case which is not borne out by the evidence of record. It is, therefore, fit case in which the impugned judgment of acquittal should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the Court below for fresh order in accordance with law. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused-persons submitted that the private informant has no locus standi to challenge a judgment of acquittal in criminal revisional jurisdiction, save in exceptional circumstances. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused-persons submitted that the private informant has no locus standi to challenge a judgment of acquittal in criminal revisional jurisdiction, save in exceptional circumstances. He relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court -- Kishan Swaroop V/s. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi. He further submitted that the trial Court has gone into the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion which, in the estimation of this Court may not be very sound, but that does not entitle the informant petitioner to maintain this criminal revision application. He took me through the various portions of the judgment and pointed out the main observations recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that prosecution witnesses have shown no unanimity as to the date and time of the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the ridge of both the sides have been found destroyed at the place of occurrence and both the sides have their lands adjoining each other. This has led to case and counter-case. The counter-case has been registered as Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 159/89, and is pending before the Sessions Judge for trial. Learned Counsel further submits that the trial Court has recorded that there was marpit and injuries on both the sides. In view of this position, the trial Court has held that the present is a counter-blast to the the earlier case in which the present accused-persons are informant and, therefore, has acquitted the present accused-persons. Learned Counsel has strongly relied on the findings to the effect that the prosecution witnesses have not deposed as to who had assaulted whom and with what weapon. 5. Having considered the rival submission, 1 am of the view that this revision application has to be dismissed. It is well settled by along line of cases that the revision application at the instance of the private informant is normally not maintainable save in exceptional circumstances, namely, a gross error of law apparent on the face of record, taking into account inadmissible evidence or shutting out admissible evidence, or some glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on the point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The reliance placed by the learned opposite parties on the aforesaid reported judgment of the Supreme Court is apposite. The reliance placed by the learned opposite parties on the aforesaid reported judgment of the Supreme Court is apposite. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case within the exceptional circumstances laid down by the Supreme Court. 6. In the result, this revision application is dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 3-9-93 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, in GR No. 2401/89 (Tr. No. 136/93), is hereby upheld.