ORDER : Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 13.08.2015 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in Cr. Appeal No.08 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in C.P. Case No.212 of 2008 acquitting the accused-opposite party no.2 of this revision application, has been affirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution, which is based on a complaint filed at the instance of Bidya Lakhan Bhagat @ Vidya Lakhan Bhagat, in short, is that opposite party no.2 Devdas Bhagat is his nephew and on 29.05.2003 his nephew approached him and requested to become a guarantor of a loan of Rs.2,96,548/-which the accused has applied in Jharkhand State Adivasi Co-Operative Development Corporation Ltd. In the instrument of agreement, the terms and conditions for sanctioning loan amount was incorporated whereby beneficiary had to liquidate the loan amount in time bound monthly installments. The complainant in good faith signed the agreement paper as guarantor for the said loan amount which was subsequently sanctioned but on 08.10.2007, the complainant received a notice from the advocate of the said corporation informing him that the accused has not paid the installments and the arrear amount has now become Rs.1,95,800/up to the month of September, 2007. The complainant informed the accused petitioner about the said default but he asked not to worry about the payment but when the said loan amount was not redeemed, the complainant send a notice to the accused petitioner. In response to which the advocate’s letter was given to him showing that he intends to settle the residual part of the loan amount, but he never did so. It is also alleged that the accused petitioner is not only guilty of breach of trust but has also failed to protect the interest of complainant. 3. The trial court after following the procedure, took cognizance of the offence. Accordingly, charge against the accused petitioner was framed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and after examining the witnesses on behalf of the parties the court acquitted the accused petitioner from the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no case is made out against him. 4. Accordingly, charge against the accused petitioner was framed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and after examining the witnesses on behalf of the parties the court acquitted the accused petitioner from the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that no case is made out against him. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Latehar which was in turn heard by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar and by judgment dated 13.08.2015 order of acquittal passed by the trial court was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision by the complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the findings recorded by the courts below acquitting the accused, seriously contended that the two courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and in a mechanical way without applying judicial mind, acquitted the opposite party no.2. It was also submitted that there was no justification in disbelieving consistent evidence of complainant witnesses regarding intention of the accused of deception from the very beginning as not a single installment of loan was deposited by him. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel representing the State, seriously contended that since there is concurrent finding of two courts, this court has a very limited role and should not interfere in the finding as the matter of routine. Learned counsel further relying upon judgment passed in the case Bhim Singh Versus State of Haryaya; 2002 (10) SCC 461 submitted that this Court sitting in revision cannot reappreciate the evidence and the court also bear in mind that there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and when two courts have given finding, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 7. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of learned counsels, a brief analysis of the power of revisional court against acquittal on the basis of concurrent finding is necessary. In the case, D. Stephens Vs. 7. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of learned counsels, a brief analysis of the power of revisional court against acquittal on the basis of concurrent finding is necessary. In the case, D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla reported in AIR 1951 SC 196 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Government has a right of appeal under S.417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on the record.” Similarly in another case, Bimal Singh Vs. Human Singh and another reported in 1998 (2) SCC 583 the same view was followed as taken in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla (supra). From the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, it is clearly decided that the revisional court has a limited jurisdiction and it cannot reappreciate or reexamine the evidences and only in exceptional cases where there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law the revisional court can interfere if there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Here, in the instant case, there is concurrent finding of the two courts below i.e. the trial court as well as the appellate court but even then I would like to examine the evidence available on record. I find that in the trial court four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant but none has proved the ingredients responsible to constitute the offence of cheating defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. It also appears that even the complainant in his testimony has admitted that payment of installment was slow on the part of accused but there is no denial that no installment was ever paid. The witnesses have rather testified that the accused had mortgaged his own property while taking loan. It also appears that even the complainant in his testimony has admitted that payment of installment was slow on the part of accused but there is no denial that no installment was ever paid. The witnesses have rather testified that the accused had mortgaged his own property while taking loan. The court below has rightly observed that unless element of deception is available from very beginning, the offence of cheating never gets attracted. 8. There being no error of law and all procedure have been followed and the trial court as well as the appellate court having taken into consideration the material evidence on record, this court sitting in revision cannot reappreciate the evidence. 9. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances discussed above, I do not find any merit in this revision. Hence, it is dismissed.