Revisional jurisdiction and acquittal: supervisory power cannot reappraise evidence or remand in a way that prejudices the accused.

Section 401 CrPC confers a supervisory revisional power, not an appellate power, so the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with an acquittal merely because another view is possible. Interference is confined to exceptional cases showing manifest illegality, procedural irregularity, or gross miscarriage of justice. A direction setting aside an acquittal and remanding the matter for a fresh judgment, especially after detailed comments on the merits, was treated as beyond the proper limits of revision because it could unfairly prejudice the accused. The Supreme Court therefore restored the trial court's acquittal and held that the revisional order could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by setting aside an acquittal and remanding the matter for a fresh judgment; and whether such a direction was justified in the absence of manifest illegality, procedural irregularity, or miscarriage of justice.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 401 is supervisory and is meant to correct glaring defects of procedure, manifest errors of law, or gross miscarriage of justice. It is not an appellate jurisdiction and does not permit reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible. The High Court can interfere with an acquittal only in exceptional cases, and even then it cannot indirectly achieve what it cannot do directly by converting an acquittal into conviction or by issuing directions that effectively prejudice the accused. A direction to write a fresh judgment by giving proper judicial mind to the evidence, after detailed comments on the merits, was held to be an impermissible departure from the normal exercise of revisional power and capable of loading the dice against the accused.

Conclusion: The High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of revisional jurisdiction, and its order setting aside the acquittal and remanding the matter could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal recorded by the trial court was restored and the challenge to the High Court's revisional order succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is exceptional and supervisory, and cannot be used to reappraise evidence or to set aside an acquittal by an order that effectively prejudices the accused unless there is manifest illegality, procedural irregularity, or a gross miscarriage of justice.

---