Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—This revision has been filed by the original complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash and set aside judgment and order dated 27-2-2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 30 of 2007 whereby the Respondent No. 1-original accused was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2. Short facts leading to present revision are that a complaint was filed by the applicant-original complainant before Ravpura Police Station alleging that on 16-7-2002 at about 1.00 p.m. when the complainant was standing on the road near Vadodara Telephone Exchange, the Respondent No. 1-accused gave filthy abuses keeping vengeance of earlier election quarrel and also caused injuries on his head. The complaint was registered for the offences punishable under Section 324-504 of IPC, Section 135 of BP Act and Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act. As the offence of Atrocity Act alleged against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, case was committed to the District Court and Sessions Court, Vadodara, by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadodara, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. Charge was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara, at the end of trial acquitted the accused of the charges. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal, the original complainant preferred this revision. 3. Heard learned Advocates, Mr. L.R. Mokaria for the applicant-original complainant, Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the Respondent No. 1-original accused and learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 2-State. This Court has also gone through the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that, the learned Sessions Court, after discussing the evidence in great detail and after taking into consideration the major contradictions appearing in the complaint and the evidence of the complainant as well as the evidence of main witness Dhanjibhai, has acquitted the accused. It was held by the learned Sessions Court on going through the evidence of Investigating Officer that that as piece of tiles fell on the head of the complainant, he received injuries. It was held by the learned Sessions Court on going through the evidence of Investigating Officer that that as piece of tiles fell on the head of the complainant, he received injuries. It has come on the evidence of the doctor that injury caused on the complainant is possible if tiles fall on the head of the complainant. After considering all the probabilities, the trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is to be noted that in revision this Court has limited power to interfere. It is pertinent to note that State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. 5. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases page 190 in the case of Sheetala Prasad and Others vs. Sri Kant and Another wherein it has been held Para 12 as under: “12. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant— (1) where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.” 6. In view of the aforesaid proportion of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since the case of the applicant-original complainant is not falling in any of the five categories carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above reported judgment, this revision requires to be dismissed. 7. Thus, this revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 8. Records and proceedings are ordered to be sent back to the courts below forthwith. P P P P P