1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 28.12.2002, drawn by Sessions Judge, Kathua in file No.28/Sessions in case titled State Vs. Krishan Singh and another for offences U/Ss 307,324/34 RFC, whereby he has dismissed the challan and acquitted the accused (respondents No. 1 and 2) of their charges. 2. It is not in dispute, that FIR came to be registered on the report of one Gian Singh with Police Station Basolisss. The case was investigated and the challan presented in the court of Sessions Judge, Kathua. The order of acquittal has been challenged in this revision petition by one Balbir Singh, a private person who happens to be a witness in the case, though the challan had preceded on the basis of FIR registered with the Police Station in which the State becomes real complainant. The revision has neither been preferred by the State nor by the first informant, so as to express the grievance over the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has assailed the maintainability of this criminal revision petition by raising a preliminary objection on the ground that the petitioner is a private person, rather a witness in the case and therefore, cannot prefer a revision petition to challenge the acquittal order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties in extensor and also perused the record meticulously. 5. In this case, petitioner is not the first informant on whose behalf the FIR was lodged but only a witness in the case. It is well settled proposition of law that a case that proceeds on police report, Public Prosecutor is the in charge of the case after production of the challan in the Court. The State becomes a real complainant and normally the court would not entertain this petition in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled proposition of law that a case that proceeds on police report, Public Prosecutor is the in charge of the case after production of the challan in the Court. The State becomes a real complainant and normally the court would not entertain this petition in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In dealing with the revisional powers of the High court vis-à-vis the private party to move in revision against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a police report, the Apex Court in Chinnaswamy Reddys case reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 held as under:- "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only 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." 6. The revisional powers of the High Court u/s 435 are of wide amplitude and even the Court can suo moto revise the order. In a criminal case, preceded on police report, it is the State which is aggrieved party and not the private person. Further the Apex Court in case Thakur Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC has taken a view in unequivocal terms that a private person has no locus standi to prefer an appeal or a revision in a criminal case, instituted on a police report, except in exceptional cases, and further followed by this Court in criminal revision No.65/98 titled Rajinder Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors. 7. Mrs. Surrender Kour, learned counsel for the petitioner, when taken through the order of acquittal propounded by the trial court and challenged in this petition, could not justify and convince that the said order is either utterly perverse or patently erroneous and fall within the category of exceptional cases to invoke the .revisional jurisdiction of the Court. 8. With what has been stated and discussed above, this criminal revision petition, in my opinion, possesses no merit and is accordingly dismissed.