Limited revisional power cannot overturn an acquittal indirectly by remand that effectively compels conviction.

Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is limited and can disturb an acquittal only in exceptional cases of manifest illegality, glaring procedural defect, or gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court could not reappreciate prosecution evidence, reject the trial court's assessment of medical evidence, and remand the matter in a way that effectively compelled conviction, because no perversity, inadmissible material, or legal error in the acquittal was shown. The order was therefore unsustainable, the impugned remand was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could set aside an acquittal by reappreciating evidence and remand the matter in a manner that effectively compelled a conviction.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and may be exercised against an acquittal only in exceptional cases involving manifest illegality, glaring procedural defect, or gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court did not identify any legal error, exclusion of material evidence, or reliance on inadmissible material by the trial court. Instead, it reassessed the prosecution evidence, disbelieved the trial court's appreciation of the medical evidence, and proceeded on a view that would have bound the trial court to convict on remand. Such an approach amounted in substance to reversing the acquittal indirectly, which the revisional court could not do. The trial court's findings were not shown to be perverse, and the prior final order in favour of one accused on the same footing also reinforced the impropriety of the High Court's approach.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction and its order could not be sustained; the appellants succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the acquittal as recorded by the trial court remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court cannot, save in exceptional cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, reappreciate evidence so as to overturn an acquittal directly or indirectly by remand that effectively compels conviction.

---