JUDGMENT Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—The instant revision has been preferred on behalf of Smt. Imrana against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Muzaffar Nagar acquitting the opposite party No. 1 Dilshad for the offence punishable under Section 328/511 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 172 of 2004, (State v. Dilshad). On 5.1.2007 an order was passed to summon the trial Court record and thereafter the case be listed for admission/final disposal after the receipt of the record. Since the record of the case has already been received this Court is proceeding to decide the revision at the admission stage itself after perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Pankaj Bharti as well the learned A.G.A. Sri R.D. Yadav for the State. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the complainant/revisionist is the wife of opposite party No. 1. Marriage was solemnized according to Muslim custom and rites. A case was filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance, which was allowed directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. On 8.1.1999 an application was moved before the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar for the payment of entire amount by the husband and had sought time to deposit the amount. The concerned Court had fixed 18.1.1999 on furnishing bond of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid on the date fixed. On account of this the husband was bearing grudge and on 17.1.1999 at about 5 P.M. he came to the house of the complainant with a box of sweets of 1 Kg. which was having some poisonous substance and handed over to the sister of the revisionist Kumari Bhuriya aged about 6 years stating that he had bought sweets for her sister on the eve of Eid festival. At the time of giving sweets two women of her Mohalla were present. As the revisionist was not at the house at that time and returned late at night her sister had given the box of sweets on 18.1.1999 in the morning disclosing that it has been given by her husband. At the time of giving sweets two women of her Mohalla were present. As the revisionist was not at the house at that time and returned late at night her sister had given the box of sweets on 18.1.1999 in the morning disclosing that it has been given by her husband. The revisionist suspected of some foul play and as such she had given some sweets to a dog and as soon the dog ate the sweets he became mad and in case she would have consumed the sweets she would have died. The husband Dilshad had given the sweets only in order to finish her. She went to the police station alongwith sweets box and lodged the First Information Report at police station Civil Lines against her husband Dilshad, which was registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 1999 under Sections 328 and 511 I.P.C. on 18.1.1999 at 12.25 P.M. and after investigation of the case the police swung into action and after collecting material charge-sheet was submitted and the husband of the revisionist stood for trial as the charges were framed by the trial judge on 16.8.2004 under Sections 328 and 511 I.P.C. 3. In order to substantiate the charge against the opposite party No. 1 the revisionist examined herself as P.W.1 and her sister Km. Bhuriya as P.W. 2. The Station House Officer Sunit Kumar Sharma who was the Investigating Officer as P.W. 3, had proved the report of the chemical examination Exhibit K. 2 and the charge-sheet Exhibit Ka.3. P. W. 4 Inspector Omkar Singh who had proved the check First Information Report and the copy of the general diary entry, site plan and memo, which were exhibited as Exhibit Ka.4, Ka.5, Ka-6 and Ka.7. Thereafter the statement of the accused Dilshad was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who deposed that he had been implicated due to enmity only to cause sheer harassment and in support of his case he had filed documentary proof of First Information Report of case Crime No. 124 of 1997, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Shahpur and the calendar of the relevant year 1999. After appraisal of the evidence on record the trial Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Dilshad and as such acquitted him of the charge under Sections 328 and 511 I.P.C. by the order impugned dated 10.10.2006. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has strenuously argued that the acquittal of the husband of the revisionist is against the evidence on record as there are clinching materials to substantiate the charge, which was framed against him by the trial Court. The learned trial Court has committed manifest error in disbelieving the prosecution evidence whereas the statement of the revisionist as P.W. 1 and her sister Kumari Bhuriya as P.W. 2 were sufficient to hold guilty to the husband of the revisionist. It is submitted that the opposite party No. 1 had given sweets to the sister of the revisionist, which was containing poisonous substance in respect of which the recovery memo was prepared and the same was sent for Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Agra and according to the report organic phosphorous insecticide was found. The opposite party No. 2 wanted to eliminate the revisionist as he was to pay maintenance allowance pursuant to the proceeding initiated against him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate had taken personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and granted time to deposit the maintenance amount till 18.1.1999 and it was one day earlier he came to the house and gave a box of sweets with the sole intent to eliminate her by giving poisonous substance but unfortunately it was detected by giving the same to a dog, which was containing some noxious material. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned trial Court has also misread that on the next day it was not the day of festival of Eid. On the ground that in the calendar the holiday of Idulfitar was shown on 20th January in the year 1999, which creates doubt about giving sweets by saying that it is being given on account of Eid festival. Eid festival depends upon the visibility of moon and therefore the date shown in the calendar regarding the festival of Eid on 20.1.1999 cannot be made the basis of acquittal. Eid festival depends upon the visibility of moon and therefore the date shown in the calendar regarding the festival of Eid on 20.1.1999 cannot be made the basis of acquittal. The finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is based upon misreading of evidence on record and hence the same is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned A.G.A. has supported the finding recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondent No. 1 and has submitted that there is great discrepancy in the statement of the revisionist with the statement of sister with regard to the manner of incident. Merely because the maintenance allowance was due upon the husband he had been implicated in the present case. No prima facie offence is made out under Sections 328 and 511 I.P.C. It has further been contended that it is highly improbable that the sweets which was given to the sister of the revisionist who was at that time was about six years who handed it over the same only on the next morning to her sister and at the same time she got suspected about the sweets and given the same to the dog, which is said to have become in maddening condition is in the realm of imaginary journey. Earlier also a case against the husband had been registered under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and as such it cannot be believed that the husband would go to such extent to bring sweets having poisonous substance to eliminate her. There are various contradiction and infirmities in the prosecution case, which has rightly been considered by the trial Court while acquitting the accused respondent No. 1 and as such the revision lacks any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. The present revision has been filed against the acquittal by the private complainant, this Court has gone through the evidence on record. While exercising power of revisional jurisdiction it is necessary to notice the principle on which the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section 3 of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. While exercising power of revisional jurisdiction it is necessary to notice the principle on which the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section 3 of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant under the following circumstances (1) where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible; (3) where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused; (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence; and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. 8. It is well-settled principles of law by now that the revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal ought not to be exercised lightly and that it could be exercised only in exceptional case where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In case or cases of similar nature re-trial or re-hearing of the appeal may be ordered. Then applying the above principle to the facts of the case in hand this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the husband of the revisionist for the reasons mentioned therein, which need not to be repeated again. For argument sake if the finding of the trial Court is perverse then it can only be appropriately considered if an appeal would have been filed by the State Government. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused/respondent. There is a little scope to reverse the finding of acquittal into a conviction. For argument sake if the finding of the trial Court is perverse then it can only be appropriately considered if an appeal would have been filed by the State Government. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused/respondent. There is a little scope to reverse the finding of acquittal into a conviction. In the face of prohibition contained in Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C. as the finding of acquittal cannot be converted into conviction by indirect method and in view of the matter this Court has no hesitation to say that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below acquitting the accused/respondent No. 1 for the charges under Sections 328 and 511 I.P.C. and as such the revision lacks any merit and is hereby dismissed. 9. Office is directed to remit the trial Court record forthwith. 10. The judgment be certified and be placed on record.