Grue, A J C—This order will dispose also of Criminal Revisions Nos. 403 to 405 and 424 of 1934. The applicant in each case is the President of the Municipal Committee, Bilaspur, and he prays that the orders passed by the Court of the Honorary Magistrates, Bilaspur, acquitting the non-applicants of breach of bye-law 5 punishable under bye-law 14 of the bye-laws of the Bilaspur Municipal Committee be set aside and the cases be remanded for retrial..

A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the non-applicants in Criminal Revision No. 405 of 1934 that this Court is not competent to interfere with an order of acquittal except when moved to do so by the Local Government. The non-applicants' pleader refers me to Sherkhan v. Anwarkhan, 1927 AIR(Nag) 170 Faujdar Thakur v. Kasi Chowdhury,1915 AIR(Cal) 388 Emperor v. Sheo Darshan Singh, 1922 AIR(All) 487 Emperor v. Shivputraya,1924 AIR(Bom) 456 Emperor v. Mg. Nga Aung Gyaw,1924 AIR(Bang) 98 Damdoo v. Harba, 1927 AIR(Nag) 210 Kishan Singh v. Emperor, 1928 AIR(PC) 254. In none of these cases do I find it laid down that the High Court is precluded from interfering at the instance of a private prosecutor. In 44 All 332 (3) and 48 Bom