M.A.A.KHAN,J. - (1.) ON a report lodged by the petitioner the police submitted a report Under Section 173 Cr. P.C. against Phool Singh non -petitioner and Noor Mohammad and Surjit for offences Under Section 323, 427 IPC and 3 of Prevention of Damages Property Act. On trial the learned Magistrate acquitted Noor Mohammad and Surjit Singh but convicted Phool Singh non -petitioner for offences Under Section 323, 427 IPC and Under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages Property Act but instead of sentencing him to any kind of imprisonment at that stage of the proceeding directed his release on probation Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner, who was the complainant in the police case as well as non -petitioner Phool singh preferred their appeals Under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act before the learned Sessions Judge who by his impugned order set aside the conviction of non -petitioner Phool Singh and acquitted him of the offences he had been committed. The appeal preferred by the present petitioner was, however dismissed. Now the present petition Us. 397 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the present petitioner with the contention that gross injustice has been caused to him by the learned Sessions judge in not appreciating the evidence on the record in right perspective.
(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor. Ordinarily a private party has no locus standi in a case instituted and tried on the police report Under Section 170, 173 Cr. P.C., as held by the Apex Court in the case of Thakur Das v. State : 1966CriLJ700 ), unless there are exceptional circumstances in a particular case. In the instant case the learned lower Courts had concurrently found that the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner was not only highly exaggerated but also the version given therein was not supported by several eye -witnesses. The trial court had acquitted Noor Mohammad and Surjeet but the petitioner appears to have expressed no grievance against the order of their acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge has again re -examined and re -appreciated the evidence brought on the record of the case and has opined that the evidence produced in support of the charge against Phool Singh, non -petitioner was not worth reliance. The finding of fact recorded on the basis of appreciation of the evidence is not required to be disturbed by this Court in its powers under Section 397 Cr. P.C. particularly when such powers are sought to be exercised in respect to an order of acquittal of an accused.
(3.) I , therefore, find noforce in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly.;