Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. The complainant-petitioner, by the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401, CrPC, has challenged the order dated 10.06.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dungargarh (for short the trial Court hereinafter) whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 4 of the offences under Sections 451, 323 and 504, IPC. It was a State case but the State did not seek leave to appeal. However, the complainant, being aggrieved of the order of acquittal has filed the instant revision. 2. The accused respondents were put to trial for the offences noticed above. On 27.02.1997 the complainant petitioner lodged a first information report Exhibit P-1 inter- alia alleging therein that there is a Godown of complainants brothers Satyanarayan-Mahaveer Prasad Rathi. The accused respondents No. 2 to 4 started quarrelling with the truck owner on the ground that they would not allow the truck driver to park the truck outside their house. On noticing quarrel between the truck driver and the accused respondents, the complainant came down form first floor of his residence and started intervening, upon which, it is alleged that the accused respondents hurled filthy language and threatened him. Thereafter, the accused respondents again abused the complainant. The complainant raised the cry "Bachao Bachao", upon which his wife came from Kitchen. Thereafter, Ranjeet Kundalia and Vijayraj etc. also came. Before the trial Court, the sole witness Maina Devi wife of the complainant was not produced. There are contradictions in the statement of eye-witnesses. The witnesses produced by the complainant were found to be interested having interest in the complainant. Noticing various infirmities in the prosecution case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt and extending the benefit of doubt in favour of accused respondents, acquitted them. 3. On close scrutiny and re-appreciation of the evidence, after going through the statement of prosecution witnesses, I am of considered view that the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused respondents. 3. On close scrutiny and re-appreciation of the evidence, after going through the statement of prosecution witnesses, I am of considered view that the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused respondents. On a revision by complainant there is very limited scope of interference in the finding of fact in view of the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), AIR 2002 SCW 3315 , and Harihar Chakravarthy vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266 . Even otherwise had it been an appeal then also no different view would have been possible than the one taken by the trial Court and, therefore, the order impugned calls for no interference. The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.