Revisional powers cannot turn an acquittal into conviction; proper relief for perversity is retrial, not conviction.

In revision, the High Court cannot convert an acquittal into conviction because Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars that course, even though revisional powers may extend to correcting exceptional perversity, misreading, or non-consideration of evidence. Where interference with an acquittal is warranted for manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, the proper remedy is to set aside the acquittal and order a fresh trial or retrial, not to enter a conviction. The text also clarifies that an informant is the person whose information leads to registration of the case, while a complainant is a person who makes a complaint to a Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court could convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction, and whether the proper course in a case of perverse appreciation or misreading of evidence was to direct retrial.

Analysis: Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the High Court in revision to exercise certain appellate powers, but sub-section (3) expressly bars conversion of an acquittal into conviction. Section 386 of the Code permits an appellate court to reverse an acquittal and, in appropriate cases, find the accused guilty, but that power is curtailed in revision by Section 401(3). Where acquittal results from misreading of evidence, non-consideration of evidence, or perverse appreciation of evidence, the revisional court may interfere in exceptional cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, but the permissible course is to set aside the acquittal and direct a fresh trial or retrial. The distinction between an informant and a complainant was also clarified: a person whose information leads to registration of the case is an informant, while a person who makes a complaint to a Magistrate is a complainant.

Conclusion: The High Court was not competent to convert the acquittal into conviction in revision; at most, it could have directed retrial. The appellant succeeded and the conviction entered by the High Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, the High Court cannot convert an acquittal into conviction under Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; where interference with acquittal is justified by exceptional perversity or illegality, the proper relief is retrial and not conviction.

---