JUDGMENT Bankim N. Mehta, J. By filing this application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner-original complainant has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Deesa, on 21.02.2006 in Sessions Case No. 113 of 2005 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondents-accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint registered as I-C.R.No.27 of 2005 with Thara Police Station. After the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondents-accused for the aforesaid offence. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Deesa and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 113 of 2005. The learned trial Judge framed charge for the aforesaid offence against the respondents-accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of the evidence, further statements of the respondents-accused were recorded. After hearing, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused. Therefore, the original complainant has preferred this Revision Application. 3. It may be recorded that the State Government has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. 4. I have heard Mr. Bhavsar, learned advocate for Mr.V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Falguni Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondents-accused is absent. 5. According to the prosecution case, the complainant had agricultural land in the sim of Village: Anandpura and was residing thereon by making a shelter at the time of incident. On 01.05.2005, the complainant was sleeping at his field. At about 11.15 PM, one Mr.Prajapati Jamabhai Ambarambhai came to him and informed that his house has caught fire. Therefore, the complainant, his wife, son, brother and others went to the village from the field and noticed that the house was burning. One Mr. Dudabhai Balabhai informed Thara Police Station about the incident by telephone. Thereafter, the fire was extinguished. It was revealed that damage worth about Rs. 90,000=00 was caused on account of the fire and on inquiry, one Mr. One Mr. Dudabhai Balabhai informed Thara Police Station about the incident by telephone. Thereafter, the fire was extinguished. It was revealed that damage worth about Rs. 90,000=00 was caused on account of the fire and on inquiry, one Mr. Pradhanji Hathaji Thakore informed that the house was set on fire by the respondents-accused as there was a quarrel between the complainant and the respondents-accused before about 8-10 months of the incident with regard to supply of milk. 6. It appears that initially, the incident was reported as Accident Case, but subsequently on the basis of the complaint filed by complainant-Hathaji Hemchandji Thakor, offence was registered. It appears that the complainant had no personal information or knowledge about the incident as he was away at his agricultural lands. PW-2, Pradhanji Hathaji Thakor, informed the complainant about involvement of the respondents-accused in the offence and, therefore, on the basis of the information given by PW-2, Pradhanji Hathaji Thakor, the complaint was lodged. 7. According to the complainant, at the time of incident, he was at his field and Jamabhai informed him about the incident. According to him, his son saw that the respondents-accused were involved in the incident when he went to the house. The prosecution examined son of the complainant, P.W.-2- Pradhanji, at Exhibit 10. According to the witness, the house was set on fire by the respondent-accused, but he has not categorically stated about the involvement of the respondents-accused in the incident. The prosecution also produced the complaint given by PW-1 at Exhibit 20. It appears from the complaint that his son Pradhanji believed that the respondents-accused set on fire the house as he saw the respondents-accused coming from the direction of their house. This evidence indicates that the witness has not witnessed the respondent's accused setting the fire. It also appears that there were disputes between the complainant and the respondents-accused before about 8 to 10 months of the incident about selling of milk. Therefore, possibility of false implication of the respondents-accused cannot be ruled out. 8. As observed earlier, there is no direct evidence to indicate involvement of the respondents-accused in the offence. The incident was first reported as Accidental Case, but subsequently on the next day, on the basis of the complaint, the offence was registered. Therefore, possibility of false implication of the respondents-accused cannot be ruled out. 8. As observed earlier, there is no direct evidence to indicate involvement of the respondents-accused in the offence. The incident was first reported as Accidental Case, but subsequently on the next day, on the basis of the complaint, the offence was registered. PW-2 on whose information the complaint was filed, has not seen the incident but has shown apprehension about involvement of the respondents-accused in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to connect the respondents-accused with the offence. 9. It also appears that after the incident, one Dudabhai informed the Police about the incident and the incident was reported as Accidental Case, but the said witness has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, possibility of the accidental fire cannot be ruled out. 10. It also appears from the impugned judgment that panchnama of scene of offence was drawn on 02.05.2005 between 8.30 and 9.30 AM. The complainant was present at the time of drawing panchnama, but no complaint against the respondents-accused till then was filed by the complainant. Thereafter, about 6 to 7 hours, the complaint was lodged. There is no explanation with regard to delay. Considering the conduct of the complainant, false implication of the respondents-accused cannot be ruled out. 11. In view of the above, there are number of discrepancies in the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in giving benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused. 12. It is settled proposition that an order of acquittal passed by a trial Court should be sparingly interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The interference with the order passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has overlooked the material evidence. Therefore, ordinarily, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the trial Court unless glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, ordinarily, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the trial Court unless glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to point out that there is glaring illegality or that the trial Court has overlooked the material evidence. It is also not indicated that there is manifest error of law or procedure. 13. In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to make out a ground for interference with the judgment and order of the trial Court and, therefore, the Revision Application is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Revision Application fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Rule discharged.