Revisional interference with acquittal is limited, but retrial may follow where material evidence is overlooked and justice is miscarried.

Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 to 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code is supervisory and must be exercised sparingly: it cannot be used for mere reappreciation of evidence or substitution of a different factual view, but interference is justified where an acquittal reflects manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. A retrial may be ordered in exceptional cases if material evidence was overlooked. On the facts, circumstances such as the deceased being dragged into the house, the house being found locked, the door being broken open, and the mutilated body recovered from the courtyard were treated as material evidence ignored by the trial court, supporting interference and retrial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, was justified in setting aside the acquittal and remitting the case for retrial on the ground that the trial court had overlooked material evidence.

Analysis: Revisional power under Sections 397 to 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is supervisory and must be exercised sparingly. It cannot be used merely to reappreciate evidence or to substitute a different view on facts, but interference is warranted where the acquittal results from manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. A retrial may be ordered in exceptional cases where material evidence has been ignored. On the facts, the evidence of dragging the deceased into the house, the house being found locked, the breaking open of the door, and the recovery of the mutilated body from the courtyard were treated as material circumstances overlooked by the trial court.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal and directing retrial. The challenge to that order failed.

Final Conclusion: Interference with an acquittal in revision is permissible where the trial court has overlooked material evidence and the result is a manifest illegality causing gross miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference with an acquittal is permissible only in exceptional cases to correct manifest illegality or prevent gross miscarriage of justice, particularly where material evidence has been overlooked; it cannot rest on mere reappreciation of evidence.

---