Revisional jurisdiction against acquittal is limited; a private complainant cannot seek retrial by reappraising evidence.

The High Court's revisional jurisdiction against an acquittal at the instance of a private complainant is narrow and exceptional: it may be exercised only to correct a glaring procedural defect, manifest legal error, or other serious infirmity causing grave miscarriage of justice. It cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, nor can it justify reappraisal of oral evidence or a retrial merely to overturn factual findings. Applying that principle, the High Court exceeded the proper limits of revision by reweighing the evidence and directing retrial, so the revisional order was unsustainable and the acquittal restored by the trial court stood revived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in a revision at the instance of a private complainant against an order of acquittal, could reappraise the evidence and direct a retrial, and whether such interference was justified on the facts.

Analysis: The revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to correct grave injustice, but it is not intended to be exercised as if it were a right of appeal. In matters of acquittal, the statutory scheme gives the State the principal right of appeal, while a private complainant can invoke revision only within narrow limits. The High Court may interfere only in exceptional cases involving a glaring defect in procedure, a manifest error of law, or another serious infirmity resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. It cannot, in the absence of such circumstances, reassess oral evidence and reverse findings of fact by resorting to an order of retrial, because that would indirectly achieve what the statute prohibits directly.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the proper limits of revisional jurisdiction by reweighing the evidence and ordering retrial; its order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal restored by the trial court stood revived, and the impugned revisional order directing retrial was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a revision against acquittal at the instance of a private complainant, the High Court may interfere only for a serious legal infirmity causing grave miscarriage of justice and cannot reappraise evidence or order retrial to circumvent the statutory bar against converting acquittal into conviction.

---