The High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party only in exceptional cases, such as where there is a glaring defect in procedure, a manifest error on a point of law, or a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Patnaik, J. - Both these revisions are directed against one and the same order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1981 and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1982 is at the instance of the informant who challenges the order of acquittal of opposite parties 1 to 6 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Criminal Revision No. 236 of 1982 is by one of the accused whose conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, has been maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

3. Seven accused persons stood their trial for offences under Sections 448/506/147/149/323/426, Indian Penal Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Cuttack, on the allegation that on 31-7-1978 at 12 a.m., P.W. 4. the son of the informant (P.W. 7) was returning after taking bath when accused Kailash was abusing him and his family members. He also assaulted P.W. 4. When he cried, accused Kailash lifted him and threw him on a Chaura. P.W. 5, the daughter of the informant and P.W. 6, the wife of the informant, seeing the occurrence immediately rushed to the spot, but Kailash further abused them and assaulted them. When they left the place, accused persons chased them and trespassed into their house and there inside the house accused Dharanidhar gave a stick blow on the right leg of P.W. 6 who is the wife of the informant and other accused persons destroyed the articles inside the house. The informant was absent from the house at the time and on being informed lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1). After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet.

4. The plea of the accused persons was one of denial.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, to bring home the charge, a number of witnesses were examined of whom P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6 and 9 are supposed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 is the informant and P.W. 8 is the doctor who examined the injured persons. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused persons under Sections 448/506/147/149/323/426, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each on all counts, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

6. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge excepting convicting accused Kailash u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, for having caused hurt to P.Ws. 4 and 5 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days, set aside all other convictions and sentences and hence the aforesaid two revisions.

7. Mr. S.K. Dey, the learned Counsel for the informant Petitioner contends that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on an error of record and also on perverse appreciation of evidence which has caused gross miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this should be a fit case where the order of acquittal should be vacated and the matter should be remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for re-consideration. Mr. Palit, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons, on the other hand contends that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly expressed himself, but a reading of the impugned judgment would show that he has rejected the evidence of the eye-witnesses and in that view of the matter, the question of interference with the said order, particularly at the instance of the informant, does not arise. The power of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal at the instance of private parties has been well discussed in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 1962 S.C.D. 1004. It has been held in the said case:

It is true that it is open to a 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 in our opinion be