K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision the informant-petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore acquitting the accused-opposite parties of offences under Sections 143 and, 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case shorn of unnecessary details is stated below. The petitioner (P. W. 1) and his two brothers purchased the disputed homestead land measuring Ac. 0. 28 decimals appertaining to M. S. plot Nos. 820, 821 and 822 in Khata No. 301 of mouja Gobindpur by a registered sale deed (Ext. 2) dated 20 -12 - 1976 for consideration from one Pagali Dei. After purchase they enclosed the area which centained bamboo clumps. On 9-6-1980 at about 9 a. m. the opposite parties one of whom named Maguni Das has in the meantime died entered inside the disputed land and despite protests, cut and removed a large number of bamboos from the bamboo clumps. Several witnesses including me Grama Rakhi (p. w. 2) saw the incident. On the next day the petitioner (P. W. 1) gave a written report (Ext. 1) to the A. S. I. of Balimunds. Out - post (P. W. 6) who commenced investigation during which he saized 21 pieces of bamboos from the Ban of deceased Maguni Das and his brother under seizure list (Ext. 9) and further under seizure list Ext. 10 he seized 145 pieces of bamboos from their custody. After close of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the opposite parties for having committed offences under Sections 143, 294, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) CHARGES were framed against the opposite parties for having committed offences under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. They took the plea that they had cut bamboos from their own homestead lands in their khas possession, but the case was started falsely against them.

( 4 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate who tried the opposite parties and had the opportunity of examining the prosecution witnesses recorded the findings to the effect that the disputed land as well as the bamboo clumps were in possession of P. W. 1. On the date of occurrence the opposite parties committed theft of a large number of bamboos from the dumps although they had no right to do so. Therefore, he convicted them for the offences they were charged with and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

( 5 ) THE opposite parties preferred appeals before the learned Sessions Judge who on very superficial considerations and without delving deep into the voluminous oral and documentary evidence recorded an order of acquittal on the finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

( 6 ) AT the outset it is necessary to quote the legal principle laid down in the oft quoted decision reported in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. 1 It is true that it is open to the High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties though the State may not have thought fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a main fest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Subsection (4) of Section 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. it is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Some cases of this kind however may be indicated, which would justif