JUDGMENT I. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21-05-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Ad hoc), FTC, Tinsukia in Criminal Appeal No. 52 (3) 2004, an appeal filed by the respondents, herein, reversing the judgment of the conviction and sentence of the respondents passed by the trial Court in Case No. 248 c of 2001 and acquitting the respondents. The facts leading to filing of the complaint by the appellant are that on 10-07-2001, the respondents along with other accused persons attacked complainant/appellant and his companions. They chased them to their house and apprehending imminent danger the complainant and his companions with their respective family members fled away through the back door of their house. The accused persons, then, entered into the houses of the complainant and others and caused mischief by damaging furniture, trunks, TV. and other valuable articles. They also looted cash amount of Rs. 60,000/-, cash certificates, bank pass book, cheque book, gold ornaments etc. 2. After the incident, the complainant appellant went to the police station and reported the incident. But the police instead of taking any action, detained the complainant and his companions at the police station, and they were released on the following day. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, was not entertained by the police at the Doom-dooma police station. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint case whereupon the aforementioned C.R. Case No. 248 of 2001 was registered. The case being transferred to Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, for disposal, the learned SDJM examined the complainant and witnesses. Cognizance was taken under Sections 147 /149 /448 /427 /379, IPC against the 16 accused persons. During the trial, 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused persons. 3. On completion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons under Sections 147 /427 /149, IPC and for their conviction under Section 147, IPC, they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. They were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for their conviction under Section 427, IPC read with Section 149, IPC, in default of payment of total fine amount of Rs. 300/-, they were to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. 4. 100/- each. They were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for their conviction under Section 427, IPC read with Section 149, IPC, in default of payment of total fine amount of Rs. 300/-, they were to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. 4. Three accused persons paid the fine and no appeal was filed on their behalf. Remaining 13(thirteen) accused persons {respondents herein) preferred the appeal before the learned Additional Session Judge, Tinsukia. In the appeal, the judgment and order of the conviction and sentence passed against the accused persons was set aside and the accused appellants were set at liberty. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, FTC, Tinsukia, a complaint-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. 6. I have heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the complainant appellant as well as Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents opp. Parties and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Assam. 7. Mr. Bowmick, learned counsel raised the preliminary objection as regard the maintainability of the present appeal. It is submitted that the appeal against the acquittal by the learned trial Court is only maintainable under Section 378, Cr.P.C. In this case, the accused were convicted by the trial Court. The appeal was preferred before the appellate Court i.e. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tinsukia and in the appeal, the accused respondents were acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. Section 378, Cr.P.C. is attracted only when the acquittal is recorded by the trial Court and not by the appellate Court. That apart, an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and re-consider the evidence passed by the learned trial Court. The appellate Court may reach its own conclusions on law as well as on facts. 8. It is settled law that the appellate Court would not ordinarily interfered with the order of the acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by manifest illegality, which can be characteristic of perverse. Merely because, when two views are possible, the appellate Court would not take the view reverse, which would up set the judgment delivered by the Court below. Merely because, when two views are possible, the appellate Court would not take the view reverse, which would up set the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has the power to review the entire evidence to see whether judgment passed by the Court blow is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law. 9. In the cited case of Mrinal Das and Others v. State of Tripura, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 479 , it was held that an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there was "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. An appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity of the judgment order is not warranted. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the lower Court records, it appears that the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence, summoned the accused persons and recorded the evidence before the charge and thereby adopted the procedure for trial of warrant case instituted otherwise, than, on police report. But the learned trial Court instead of framing formal charge against the accused persons explained the particulars of offence to the accused persons. The appellate Court held that only on the ground of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, the conviction and sentence cannot be vitiated as no prejudice was caused to the accused persons 11. The appellate Court observed that the offence took place on 10-07-2011 and complaint was filed before the Court on 19-12-2001 i.e. after about 5 months 4 days of the occurrence. The explanation given by the complainant was not accepted by the appellate Court. The appellate Court also found inconsistencies and exaggeration in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The appellate Court elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analysing the evidence on record passed the judgment of acquittal. 12. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. to prefer second appeal against the conviction or acquittal. Sub-clause 2 to Section 374, Cr.P.C. speaks about the appeal from conviction of any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge to the High Court, which reads as under:- 374. 12. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. to prefer second appeal against the conviction or acquittal. Sub-clause 2 to Section 374, Cr.P.C. speaks about the appeal from conviction of any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge to the High Court, which reads as under:- 374. Appeals from convictions.-(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a high Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court. (2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven year has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court. (3) Save an otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any persons,- (a) Convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or (b) Sentenced under Section 325, or (c) In respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been may appeal to the Court of Sessions. 13. Section 378 provides for appeal against the acquittal on trial held by the trial Court. Admittedly, in this case, the respondents were convicted by the trial Court. They preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge re-apprised the evidence and set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court. The admitted position of law that where two views are reasonably possible from the very set of evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. 14. In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal being not maintainable under Section 378 as discussed above is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Send down the LCRs along with a copy of the judgment and order to the learned Court below forthwith.