JUDGMENT : P. K. Tripathy, J 1. This revision is directed against the order of acquittal in G. R. Case No. 353 of 1995 (T. R. No. 1281/95) passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada as per the impugned judgment dated 23.3.1999. State having not preferred any appeal, the informant has preferred this revision and the accused persons are respectively opposite party members 2 & 3. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6.10.1995 in the evening hours at about 7 P.M. accused persons were found inside the Employees club premises of J. K. Paper Mill. Some of the rooms of the club house were found open and two locks and a dismantled television set were found inside the club room and that accused / opposite party No. 3, P. Jagadiswar Rao while escaped the other accused viz., DilipvKumar Rajguru (O. P. No. 2) found inside the premises and handed over to the police. On completion of investigation charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 457/380 read with Section 511/34,1.P.C. was submitted and the charge was framed accordingly. Accused persons took the plea of denial. Prosecution examined nine witnesses whereas the accused persons examined themselves as D.Ws. 1 and 2. Prosecution has also relied on the seizure list and the zimanama which have been marked as exhibits. 3. The trial court assessed the evidence on record out of which the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was most material as the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He found that evidence to be deficient to prove the allegations making out the aforesaid offence and therefore granting the benefit of doubt both the accused persons were acquitted. 4. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court did not properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and wrongly acquitted them. After placing before this Court the evidence on record, he however was satisfied that a case for the offence under Sections 457/380, l.P.C. or attempt to commit such offences is not clearly made out. Accordingly, while conceding to that extent, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the other witnesses have remained unchallenged that the accused persons were found inside the club premises. Accordingly, while conceding to that extent, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the other witnesses have remained unchallenged that the accused persons were found inside the club premises. Since their entry into the premises and remaining there unauthorisedly is purely making out a case of criminal trespass punishable u/s 447, l.P.C. and, therefore, when the accused persons have been charged for the offence u/s 457, l.P.C. learned S.D.J.M. should not have acquitted them and should have convicted them for the offence u/s 447, l.P.C. He further argued that since this Court is in seisin of the matter because of the aforesaid illegality committed by the trial court as aforesaid, it is but appropriate to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to direct for a retrial in accordance with law, Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons on the other hand while highlighting the limited scope of the revisional court to interfere with the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant also argued that a case for the offence u/s 447, l.P.C. is not at all made out in view of the discrepant evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 besides the unchallenged evidence of the D.Ws. 1 and 2. Both the parties have referred to and relied on some reported decisions in support of their respective contentions. 5. So far as it relates to extent of jurisdiction of the revisional Court to interfere with an order of acquittal, petitioner has relied on the cases of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Ayodhya Dube and Others Vs. Ram Sumer Singh, and Benudhar Routra v. Raula ' Maheswar Sahu and Anr., (1990) 3 OCR 507 . In that context, the accused persons have relied on the cases of Vimal Singh Vs. Khuman Singh and Another, Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of NCI of Delhi, 1999 (I) OLR 305 and Somanath Bisoi and Anr. v. Bulu alias Satyanarayan Bisoi and Anr. (2000) 18 OCR 7. After careful scrutiny of the above cited citations, this Court finds no controversy in the opinion expressed by the cited authorities that the revisional Court is not to behave as a Court of appeal. of NCI of Delhi, 1999 (I) OLR 305 and Somanath Bisoi and Anr. v. Bulu alias Satyanarayan Bisoi and Anr. (2000) 18 OCR 7. After careful scrutiny of the above cited citations, this Court finds no controversy in the opinion expressed by the cited authorities that the revisional Court is not to behave as a Court of appeal. It has also been propounded that unless there is a case of flagrant miscarriage of justice or illegalities which has perpetrated due to non-application of mind, or perversity in recording or appreciating the evidence by the trial or the appellate Court in support of the order of acquittal, it is not prudent for the Court of revision to interfere with an order of acquittal. 6. Being alive to that mandate of law and salutory principle and on assessment of facts and evidence on record, this Court finds that though the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 has remained unshaken regarding finding the accused persons inside the premises but the explanation of accused P. Jagadiswar Rao, that he was inside the fence area for easing purpose has not been challenged even when he made such statement as D.W. 1. Therefore, his mere entry into the premises without the proof of any annoyance being caused to anybody or proving existence of the other ingredients of Section 441, I.P.C. does not make him liable for conviction u/s 447, I.P.C. It is true that the trial Court did not divert its attention as to whether the said conduct of the accused was proving an offence u/s 447 or 448, I.P.C. Nonetheless, this Court finds that a benefit of doubt in that respect accrues in favour of accused Jagadiswar and therefore direction for a retrial by setting aside the order of acquittal is not appropriate on the given facts and circumstances. Similarly, so far as the other accused Dilip Kumar Rajguru is concerned in his evidence as D.W. No. 2 though he denied to the allegation of being caught inside the club premises but such evidence also remained unchallenged by the prosecution in as much as no question was put to him regarding his presence inside the premises or causing annoyance in remaining inside the club premises or imputing any other motive against him which would constitute the offence of criminal trespass. Under such circumstance, it cannot be said that the prosecution evidence should be preferred as against the uncontroverted defence evidence. Keeping in view the evidence led by both the parties a benefit of doubt in his favour as well is attracted. In that context, though the principle of law has remained undisputed that a person accused of a higher offence of the same nature can be convicted for a lesser offence but for such a conviction there must clear and clinching proof of the guilt for the lessor offence. As noted above, in this case the position of evidence is such that accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. 7. For the reasons indicated above, though this Court finds that the trial court did not make any discussion of the evidence to find out if an offence u/s 447, I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons but because of the aforesaid facts and evidence, it is not found necessary to remand the case to decide that aspect when the evidence on record is sufficient to grant a benefit of doubt in their favour. Thus, in the absence of any glaring injustice or perversity in approach by the trial Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal and accordingly the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed