JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Revision filed by Revisionist Rajendra is directed against the judgment/order dated 5.7.2000 of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Laxmangarh (Sikar), whereby the said Court acquitted the accused-non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 of the charge for offence under sections 382, 365, 342 & 147 IPC. 2. Brief facts relating to this Criminal Revision are that complainant-revisionist has filed typed report before the Police Station, Laxmangarh, mentioning therein that the applicant was ploughing with tractor No. RJ-23R 1056 in the field of Mahesh. All of a sudden, two persons came to him and told him that as the 'excel' of their jeep was broken, so that jeep is standing. Those persons asked him to take their jeep with the help of tractor. He went with tractor with those persons. He saw Parasram, Nathuram, Mahipal and other seven persons on the way. All those persons caught him and pushed him in the jeep and Parasram took forcibly that tractor. Those persons left him near a pond. On this report, Police registered a case for offence under sections 147, 149, 342, 365 & 382 IPC. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused-Parsarm, Nathuram and Mahipal in the trial Court. Charges were framed against these accused persons. Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments, accused persons were acquitted of the charges. Against that judgment, this criminal revision is filed. 3. Arguments were heard at the admission stage. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that lower Court has wrongly acquitted accused persons. It is further argued that prosecution has produced many witnesses but the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution in the right perspective. 4. I have gone through the judgment of the lower Court. This criminal revision is against the judgment of acquittal. It was a State case. In this matter, police filed challan against the accused persons, in which the trial Court has acquitted them and this revisionist was complainant of that case. In such matters, legal position is settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. It was a State case. In this matter, police filed challan against the accused persons, in which the trial Court has acquitted them and this revisionist was complainant of that case. In such matters, legal position is settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 , has held that though it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal, even at the instance of the private party, but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 5. In the same way, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Kaptan Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P., and another reported in (1997) 6 SCC 185 , that the revisional power of the High Court while sitting in judgment over an order of acquittal should not be exercised unless there exists a manifest illegality in the judgntent or order of acquittal or there is grave miscarriage of justice. 6. In the same way in the State of Karnataka v. Appu Balu Ingele reported in AIR 1993 SC 1126 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. 7. Law is clear on this point that revisional power cannot be equated with the power of appellate Court. When I examined the present case, I found that in the present case there were two important eye-witnesses according to the First Information Report, whose names were Mahesh Gupta and Mana Ram, who have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story at all. Trial Court has appreciated the entire prosecution evidence and has elaborately discussed as to why their evidence is not reliable. In my view, the judgment of the lower Court is not at all illegal or perverse. I am also of the view that in such matters, High Court cannot interfere with the finding of acquittal in criminal revision. This Criminal revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.Consequently, the same is dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******