JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2002 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate (SD), Ajmer in criminal Case no. 136 of 1996 whereby he acquitted the respondents from the offence under Section 498 A IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner lodged a written report on 30.5.1996 at P.S. Ganj, Ajmer against the accused persons under Section 498 A IPC. Upon this report, police started investigation and registered regular FIR No. 93 of 1996 against all the accused respondents and filed charge-sheet against them before the trial court. The trial court thereafter framed charges under Section 498 A IPC, to which the petitioners denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and their statements were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide order dated 25.11.2002 acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 498 A IPC. Hence this revision petition has been filed on behalf of complainant-petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has contended that the trial court has not properly considered the relevant documents as also statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence impugned order dated 25.11.2002 be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by trial court dated 25.11.2002 and contended that the trial court has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence revision petition should be dismissed. 5. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgement 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 has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgement of acquittal passed by the court below." 6. 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 respondents and the learned appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. 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 respondents and the learned appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. It may be stated that in revision/appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal/revision against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight age and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, this Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgement of acquittal passed by the trial court dated 25.11.2002.Revision Dismissed. *******