JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Crl. Misc. No. 39014 of 2003. For the reasons stated therein, Crl. Misc. is allowed and the delay of 480 days in refiling the revision is condoned. Crl. Revision No. 1774 of 2003 2. Vide judgment dated 19.10.2001 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam, the respondents have earned acquittal in case FIR No. 284 dated 30.9.1998 under Sections 506/452/325/323/149/148 Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sunam. 3. The State of Punjab has not filed any appeal against their acquittal, as is clear from the certificate issued by the Advocate General, Punjab. Thus, the present revision has been filed by the complainant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. With his assistance I have gone through the entire record. He has also read over certain statements of the prosecution witnesses before me. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, which is based on proper appreciation of entire evidence. 5. The scope of revision against the acquittal has been well discussed by the Honble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 61, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that 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. It is further observed that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. It is further observed by their Lordships that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate 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. 6. 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. 6. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singhs case (supra), their Lordships have relied upon the decisions in D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 Supreme Court 196, K.C. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788, Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram, 1973(2) SCC 583, Patakalapti Naryana Gajapathi Raju and others v. Ramapalli Peda Appadu and another, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1854 and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707. In Gobind Ram v. Murari Lal, 2003(1) RCR (Crl.) 602 Court while dismissing a revision against the order of acquittal has also relied upon Bindeshwari Prasads case (supra). Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and following the ratio of the decision in Bindeshwaris case (supra), no case for interference is made out. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Revision dismissed.