Retrial in revision requires exceptional grounds, and earlier trial evidence must remain part of the record on remand.

Revisional interference with an acquittal at the instance of a private complainant is exceptional and justified only where there is a glaring procedural defect, manifest legal error, or flagrant miscarriage of justice; a retrial cannot be ordered merely because a different view of the evidence is possible. When a retrial is directed, the earlier evidence does not disappear from the record and must be considered together with any further evidence led on remand; the case cannot be treated as starting from a blank slate. The remand was left undisturbed, but the trial court was required to decide afresh on the whole evidence without being influenced by the impugned observations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in revision at the instance of a private complainant, could set aside an acquittal and direct a de novo trial. (ii) Whether, on remand for retrial, the evidence already recorded in the original trial could be ignored or wiped out from the record.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in revision at the instance of a private complainant, could set aside an acquittal and direct a de novo trial.

Analysis: Revisional power against an acquittal is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or a manifest error of law causing flagrant miscarriage of justice. A retrial is not to be ordered merely because another view of the evidence is possible or because the prosecution case appears weak. The extraordinary approach taken in a prior case involving a wholly unfair and tainted trial could not be treated as a general rule applicable to ordinary prosecutions. The High Court's direction for a fresh decision from stage one, coupled with the suggested formula, was therefore liable to cause an impression that conviction was being indirectly mandated.

Conclusion: The High Court's power to order retrial was not to be exercised as a routine matter, but on the facts the Court declined to interfere with the remand order.

Issue (ii): Whether, on remand for retrial, the evidence already recorded in the original trial could be ignored or wiped out from the record.

Analysis: Even where a retrial is ordered, the earlier evidence does not vanish from the record. The trial court must decide the matter on the basis of the entire evidence already on record together with any additional evidence recorded on retrial. A direction to proceed as if the case were starting from a blank slate is impermissible.

Conclusion: The earlier trial evidence remains part of the record and must be considered along with the evidence adduced on retrial.

Final Conclusion: The remand order was left undisturbed, but the trial court was directed to decide the case afresh on the whole evidence without being influenced by the observations in the impugned judgment or in this decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrial ordered in revision does not erase the evidence already recorded, and such power is to be used only in exceptional cases where interference is necessary to prevent a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

---