Revision barred where appeal lies against acquittal; complainant cannot bypass the statutory appeal remedy and seek revision instead.

Where the Code grants a complainant a right to seek special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal, revision cannot be used as an alternative remedy. The court read the word "may" in Section 417(3) as giving only an option whether to appeal, not a choice between appeal and revision, and treated "such an order of acquittal" as covering the acquittal contemplated by Section 417(1). Because an appeal lay and was not pursued, the statutory bar in revision applied and the revision petition was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision petition was maintainable against an order of acquittal when the Code provided an appeal at the instance of the complainant.

Analysis: Section 417(3) conferred a right on a complainant in a case instituted upon complaint to seek special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 439(5) barred revision at the instance of a party who could have appealed where an appeal lay but was not brought. The use of the word "may" in Section 417(3) was held to indicate only an option to appeal or not to appeal, and not an option to choose between appeal and revision. The expression "such an order of acquittal" in Section 417(3) was read as referring to the acquittal covered by Section 417(1), namely both original and appellate orders of acquittal.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code provides an appeal against an order of acquittal, a complainant cannot bypass that remedy and invoke revision, because the statutory bar in revision operates when an appeal lies and is not pursued.

---