Atma Charan, J.C.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court be set aside and that the opposite party be visited with penalty provided by the bye-laws made by the Ajmer Municipal Committee Under Section 161 (9) read with Section 345 (e)(i) of Regulations (6) of 1925 published under Notification No, 410/33, dated 22nd February 1948, for each of the three offences committed on 18th January 1949, 23rd December 1948 and 38th January 1949.
3. Section439 (4), Criminal P.C. of course, lays down that:
Nothing in this station...shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
It is now a well, settled law that the High Court will also not ordinarily interfere with an order of acquittal in revision unless interference is urgently called for in the interests of public justice. Even in such cases the High Court should be slow to interfere because it is always open to an aggrieved complainant to move the authorities for en appeal against an order of acquittal by the Government. The complainant in the present case is the Municipal Committee of Ajmer, and could have easily moved the authorities concerned for an appeal against the order of acquittal by the Government. The matter in dispute between the parties, no doubt, is a very trivial one, and interference in no way appears to be called for.
4. The reference accordingly is rejected.