JUDGMENT : Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. Petitioner/informant/injured being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.4.2002 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.1, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1985/14 of 2002 acquitting Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9 has challenged the same under present revision petition. . 2. While assailing the judgment of acquittal it has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that by way of erroneous consideration of the consistent, trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the finding of acquittal has been recorded by the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that learned lower Court wrongly held that delay in dispatching of, receipt of the FIR by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was obnoxious to the prosecution version. To explain the same, it has been submitted that fardbeyan of informant was recorded on 21.9.1983 at about 1:00 p.m. Bihar Hospital by the police official of Bihar Police Station and from there it was sent to Manpur Police Station where it was received on 23.9.1983 and on the basis thereof, a case was registered. Thereafter, the same was sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which was received on 27.9.1983. None of the accused had ever raised any grievance on that very score nor the situation so visualizing in between gives a tip having the FIR antedated because of the fact that it has passed through at least two Police Stations having due endorsement thereupon. It has also been submitted that learned lower Court had dealt with the timing so minutely for the purpose of discrediting the prosecution version which, in the facts and circumstances of the case not warranted because of being the witness peasant and rustic having no specific idea with regard to exact timing, deposed in approximate way, therefore, were not liable to be disbelieved. 3. It has also been submitted that from the suggestion of the defence, it, is apparent that they have not denied the injury over the person of informant rather they stated that it happens to be a self-inflicted injury which they sustained during course of raiding upon them however no counter version happens to be duly brought upon record. 4. Furthermore, it has been submitted that save and except PW 5, Sibban 'Mahto. 4. Furthermore, it has been submitted that save and except PW 5, Sibban 'Mahto. the other material witnesses Ashok Kumar (PW 1), Suresh Prasad (PW 2), Dwarika Prasad (PW 3), Dinesh Prasad (PW 4) and PW 6, informant him self categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Non-examination of Hajendra who had also been shown to be injured on account of firing made by the accused persons is not at all found to be adverse to the prosecution case on account of examination of trustworthy witnesses including the injured informant who 'have fully supported the case. The non-examination of Investigating Officer was not going to dent upon the case of the prosecution in the background of consistent evidence of the PWs as well as having absence of material contradiction in their evidence. The witnesses by their evidence have pinpointed the place of occurrence, the, manner of occurrence and the genesis of occurrence. On account thereof, the accused persons cannot be said to have found prejudiced. 5. The doctor has not been examined. Therefore, the injury report has been brought upon record by formal witness. From his evidence this much is apparent that injured Mahendra Sao had sustained fire-arm injury which is found completely explained by the consistent, prosecution version. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9 has submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned lower Court is well reasoned judgment. The learned lower Court had dealt with the evidence of each and every PW in its entirety as well as also took into account the deficiency persisting therein. The inconsistent version of the prosecution witnesses as well as improbability of the event as is evident from the evidence of PW 6. the injured authenticity of FIR became highly doubtful. After proper scrutiny of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses in consonance with non-examination of Investigating Officer as well as doctor, the learned lower Court disbelieved the prosecution version and acquitted the accused. 7. It has further been submitted that there happens to be presumption of innocence of accused and by having judgment of acquittal this view is further found fortified. Therefore, there should not be interference unless and until there happens to be exceptional circumstances so apparent requiring the same. 7. It has further been submitted that there happens to be presumption of innocence of accused and by having judgment of acquittal this view is further found fortified. Therefore, there should not be interference unless and until there happens to be exceptional circumstances so apparent requiring the same. Moreover, if from the evidence two views are possible, one leaning in favour of accused justifying the judgment of acquittal then in such circumstance, the same is bound to be accepted. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor endorsed the view of the petitioner and submitted that judgment on its face attracts interference during revisional jurisdiction on account of iconoclast approach followed by the learned lower Court during appreciation of evidence. 9. The scope of revisional power against an acquittal has been found to be exercisable in exceptional cases, when the Court had overlooked the material evidence as well as there happens to be glaring defect persisting thereupon. In a case Ram Briksh Singh & Ors. v. Ambika Yadav & Anr., reported in (2004) 7 SCC 665 , it has been taken note of and the relevant passage are quoted below : "3. The principles on which a revisional Court can set aside a judgment and order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused are well settled by a catena of judgments. The difficulty, however, arises at times about the application of the said principles. It is true that there is a statutory prohibition contained in sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code on converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and what is prohibited cannot be done indirectly as well. The question, however, is, has the High Court indirectly done what is prohibited. 4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are a group of sections conferring higher and superior Courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a Court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice: 5. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a Court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice: 5. More than half a century ago, in D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 this Court held that revisional jurisdiction when it is invoked against an order of acquittal by a private complainant is not to be lightly exercised, it could be exercised only in exceptional cases to correct a manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice and not to be ordinarily used merely for the reason that the trial Court has mis-appreciated the evidence on record. 6. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1962 SC 1788 a note of caution was appended so that the High Court does not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction in view of specific statutory prohibition. While noticing that it is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for exercise of revisional power, some cases by way of illustration were mentioned wherein the High Court would be justified in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision. The High Court would be justified to interfere where material evidence is overlooked by the trial Court. 7. In a recent decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), (2002) 6 SCC 650 noticing principles laid down in Stephens, AIR 1951 SC 196 and Chinnaswamy Reddy, AIR 1962 SC 1788 it was held that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under' Section 401 of the Code since it was well settled that the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with in revision merely on the ground of errors in appreciation of evidence". 10. 10. I do not want to incorporate the facts of the case because of the fact that the infirmities whatever is visualizing from the judgment impugned did not justify its relevance as from paragraph 14, paragraph 15, paragraph 18, of the judgment impugned it is evident that the learned trial Court had passed his judgment incorporating the relevant paras of the case diary. That means to say, the learned P.O. had actively reposed over case diary during course of appreciation of evidence and based its finding after due consideration of material fact, objective finding of the Investigating Officer, the slackness on the part of Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which should not have taken place, as is forbidden under law. 11. For better appreciation Section 172(2) of the Cr PC is quoted below :- 1...... 2. Any criminal Court may sent for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial. 12. The aforesaid issue was under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Ankoos v. High Court of A.P., reported in 2009 (4) East Cr C 274 (SC) : 2010 Cr LJ 861 wherein it has been held: "2.4. A criminal Court can use the case diary in the aid of any inquiry or trial but riot as an evidence. This position is made clear by Section 172(2) of the Code. Section 172(3) places restrictions upon the use of case diary by providing that the accused has no right to call for the case diary but if it is used by the police officer who made the entries for refreshing his memory or if the Court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such police officer it will be so done in the manner provided in Section 161 of the Code and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Court's power to consider the case diary is not unfettered. In light of the inhibitions contained in Section 172(2), it is not open to the Court to place reliance on the case diary as a piece of evidence directly or indirectly. Court's power to consider the case diary is not unfettered. In light of the inhibitions contained in Section 172(2), it is not open to the Court to place reliance on the case diary as a piece of evidence directly or indirectly. This Court had an occasion to consider Section 172 of the Code vis-a-vis Section 145 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code in Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 148 and it was stated as follows: (SCC p. 157. para 14) "14. A reading of the said subsections makes the position clear that the discretion given to the Court to use such diaries is only for aiding the Court to decide on a point. It is made abundantly clear in sub-section (2) itself that the Court is forbidden from using the entries of such diaries as evidence. What cannot be used as evidence against the accused cannot be used in any other manner against him. If the court uses the entries in a case diary for contradicting a police officer it should be done only in the manner provided in Section 145 of the Evidence Act i.e. by giving the author of the statement an opportunity to explain the contradiction, after his attention is called to that part of the statement which is intended to be so used for contradiction. In other words, the power conferred on the Court for perusal of the diary under Section 172 of the Code is not intended for explaining a contradiction which the defence has winched to the fore through the channel permitted by law. The interdict contained in Section 162 of the Code, debars the Court from using the power under Section 172 of the Code for the purpose of explaining the contradiction." 25. The High Court, however, did not keep the aforesaid legal position in mind and erred in placing reliance upon the evidence of PW 2 to PW 4 by verifying their statements recorded under Section 161 (3) of the Code from the case diary. It is here that the High Court fell into grave error in using the statements of PW 2 to PW 4 recorded under Section 161 (3) of the Code; particularly for contradicting PW 20 without affording any opportunity to him to explain the position. It is here that the High Court fell into grave error in using the statements of PW 2 to PW 4 recorded under Section 161 (3) of the Code; particularly for contradicting PW 20 without affording any opportunity to him to explain the position. The course adopted by the High Court is impermissible in law as Section 172 of the Code is not meant to be used for the purpose it has been used by the High Court i.e. to overcome the contradictions pointed out by the defence. Ought we to know what would have been the view of the High Court with regard to the evidence of PW 2 to PW 4, had it not considered the statements of these witnesses under Section 161 (3) of the Code. As a matter of fact, the High Court heavily relied upon the deposition of PW 2 to PW 4 in upsetting the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. This is what the High Court held : "Accused 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 41 and 48 were identified by PW 2: Accused 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 34 and 37 were identified by PW 3; Accused 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 41 and 48 were identified by PW 4; and Accused 1. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 34, 37, 41 and 48 were commonly identified by PWs 2 to 4." 26. In our view, as a result of afore noticed error of law, judgment of the High Court is rendered unsustainable." Thus, the judgment impugned is found to be in conflict with mandate of law. Consequent thereupon is set aside. Petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower Court to hear afresh and pass judgment in accordance with law. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 9 are directed to be physically present, before the learned lower Court and the learned lower. Court will acknowledge their status in accordance with law. In case, there happens to be absence, the learned lower Court will proceed to procure their appearance in accordance with law. Petition allowed.