JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3.8.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ajmer, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the accused respondents and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ajmer, District Ajmer, by which the accused-respondents were convicted and sentenced as under : Under Section 325/149 I.P.C. - 4 months S.I. and fine of Its. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine further 15 days S.I. Under Section 323/149 I.P.C. - Fine of Rs. 100/- to each accused, in default of payment of fine further 7 days additional S.I. Under Section 148 I.P.C. - 3 months S.I. Under Section 427/149 I.P.C. - Fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default of payment of fine further 3 days S.I. to each. Under Section 341/149 I.P.C. - Fine of Rs. 50/- each in default of payment of fine further 3 days additional S.I. to each accused respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner Ismile Khan lodged a written report against the accused-respondents and others at Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer. On the basis of the said report, police registered a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 108/1999 for the offence under Sections 143, 148, 323, 341, 379 and 427 I.P.C. The police after completing the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-respondents No. 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325 and 427 I.P.C. Thereafter, the learned trial Court after hearing framed the charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. The accused-respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in support of its case produced some witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 4. Thereafter, the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 5. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the accused- respondents from all the offences, as indicated above. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the accused-respondents before the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ajmer. The Appellate Court vide his order dated 3.8.2006 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.12.2004 and acquitted the accused-respondents from all the charges. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the accused-respondents before the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ajmer. The Appellate Court vide his order dated 3.8.2006 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.12.2004 and acquitted the accused-respondents from all the charges. Against the said order passed by the appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred instant petition before this Court. 6. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 7. Mr. K.A. Khan, counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner and the appellate Court has failed to record the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence convicted the accused-respondent while the Appellate Court has not given the attention on the statements of the prosecution evidence. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : " Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., SC 2006 Vol. 10 page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court hag observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." 10. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused- respondent for the offence for which he has been acquitted. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused-respondent.For these reasons, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Court below.In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision dismissed. *******