ORDER : This matter is listed for admission today and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on both sides. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 were running Manasa College Educational Institution in Menejus Towers near Urva Stores of Mangaluru City. The accused Nos.1 and 2 without obtaining proper recognition of UGC of Government of India, with a common intention to deceive the students have projected that Manasa College run by them were affiliated to JNRV University affiliated to UGC and make believe the students and thereby, having committed the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered in C.C.No.122/2016. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges examined the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PWs-1 to 8 and also relied upon documents, Exs.P1 to P18(a). On the other hand, the respondents have not lead any evidence before the Trial Court but only got marked the documents at Ex.D1. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the complainant/State has not proved the charges of conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and fraud against the accused and based only on paper publication, a case has been registered making an allegation of criminal breach of trust and fraud. Even the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the witnesses have not made any attempt to make correspondence to the UGC or to the concerned JNRV about the affiliation or recognition of the College of accused Nos.1 and 2. They have not made any attempt to ascertain whether the educational institution of the accused is only the study centre to facilitate the students of JNRV to whom the application submitted for different courses. The admission made by the witnesses discloses that at the time of getting admission to the College, it was informed by the Management of the College that Manasa College is the study centre and he could not say the number of the study centre. The admission made by the witnesses discloses that at the time of getting admission to the College, it was informed by the Management of the College that Manasa College is the study centre and he could not say the number of the study centre. The Trial Court has further observed that the evidence of these witnesses does not disclose mens-rea or guilty intention of accused Nos.1 and 2 while making paper advertisement as to joining to the courses of their College or as to making criminal conspiracy to deceive the students or as to commit cheating or as to commit criminal breach of trust as contended by them and hence acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2. The finding of the Trial Court is challenged by the petitioner by filing appeals and all the appeals are considered by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the entire material available on record comes to a conclusion that the Trial Court has not passed any perverse order and it is also not against the settled principles of law on the face of it and also that acquittal of the accused does not lead to miscarriage of justice. In other words, the Appellate Court shall interfere with the acquittal judgment only if it finds errors. The Appellate Court did not find any error committed by the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed by the State. 4. The learned HCGP has vehemently contended that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record and there is no deliberate discussion of the evidence available on record. Even the Appellate Court has also reached at a wrong conclusion, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. The counsel further submitted that the witnesses have categorically stated that they have paid the amount and the same has not been disputed. Hence, on the factual aspects, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in not appreciating the material on record. 5. The counsel further submitted that the witnesses have categorically stated that they have paid the amount and the same has not been disputed. Hence, on the factual aspects, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in not appreciating the material on record. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the Courts have given a definite finding that the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) of CPC has not been proved and definite finding is also given by the Trial Court in Paragraph No.34 of its judgment that the evidence of the witnesses does not disclose the mens-rea or guilty intention of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Apart from that, it has come to a conclusion that based on the paper publication, the complainant/prosecution has invoked criminal jurisdiction and has not even verified with the UGC or to the concerned JNRV about the affiliation or recognition of the College of accused Nos.1 and 2. When the order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or correctness and propriety, the revisional jurisdiction is very limited and the same cannot be exercised. 6. Having heard the learned HCGP appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the accused No.2/respondent, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused without obtaining proper recognition of UGC of Government of India have admitted the students that they will conduct B.Tech in Marine Engineering Course for the academic year 2005-2006. The students have been examined as prosecution witnesses and the Trial Court considering both the oral and documentary evidence, after detail discussion of each and every evidence of the witnesses had arrived at a conclusion that only based on the paper publication, the prosecution witnesses are examined and the witnesses have not made any attempt to make correspondence to the UGC or to the concerned JNRV about the affiliation or recognition of the College of accused Nos.1 and 2. The records also discloses that the other students have already persuaded their education and had obtained degree and the students who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution have categorically deposed that they have discontinued the education and when the allegation of ‘no permission’ and ‘no affiliation’ is attributed and the prosecution witnesses have not verified whether permission was obtained or not and also whether the same is affiliated to UGC or not and only based on the article appeared in the newspaper, they have invoked criminal jurisdiction against the respondent herein. When such being the factual aspects, when concurrent finding is given by both the Courts and on re-appreciation of the entire material available on record, the Trial Court has come to a definite conclusion, this Court has to look into the merits of the case while invoking revisional jurisdiction. This Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction if the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has manifestly committed any error while passing the order of acquittal. The order passed by the Trial Court do not suffer any illegality or perversity and the same is passed after proper appreciation of the entire material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence. 7. In view of the discussion made above, this Court cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction and I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. On appreciation of the evidence, detail findings are given by both the Courts and no ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC is made out. When such being the case, this Court cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.