JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. It is worth mentioning here that the State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 namely Ravinder Singh, Gian Singh and Gian Kaur were booked in a case FIR No. 258 dated 28.10.1995, under sections 498-A/506/34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur. The learned trial court after evaluating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against all the three accused and as such acquitted them. 4. The complainant Paramjit Kaur has shown her dis-satisfaction with the acquittal. Hence, this revision petition. 5. There is delay of 11 days in filing the present revision petition. 6. The scope of revision against the acquittal has been well discussed by the Honble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002 AIR SCW 3315 : 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 61 (SC), wherein it has been observed as under :- "In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial Court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 against a judgment of acquittal. The judgement of the trial Court in the instant case was not perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. At best the High Court thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the trial Court took the opposite view. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. At best the High Court thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the trial Court took the opposite view. It has been repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law, and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a re-trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused, and that itself must caution the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction". Keeping in view the above said ratio, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal calling for interference by this Court. The present revision petition merits dismissal. As I am not inclined to interfere on merits, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Revision dismissed.