Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC cannot convert acquittal into conviction, and appeal remedies must be used before revision.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC cannot be used to convert an acquittal into a conviction; if interference is warranted, the proper course is to set aside the acquittal and remit the matter for retrial or rehearing. Where an appellate remedy exists for a victim or complainant and is not pursued, revision is barred under Section 401(4), and the party must use the appeal route. A revision may be treated as an appeal only when the High Court records its judicial satisfaction under Section 401(5) that the revision was filed under the mistaken belief that no appeal lay and that conversion is necessary in the interests of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction; (ii) whether a revision at the instance of a victim or complainant is maintainable when an appeal lies and has not been availed; (iii) whether the High Court must pass a judicial order before treating a revision as an appeal under the Code.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

Analysis: Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction while exercising revisional powers. The permissible course, where interference is justified, is to set aside the acquittal and remit the matter for retrial or rehearing, depending on the stage from which the acquittal arises. Revisional power is thus confined to correction of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice and does not extend to direct conviction.

Conclusion: The High Court could not convert the acquittal into a conviction; that part of the order was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a revision at the instance of a victim or complainant is maintainable when an appeal lies and has not been availed.

Analysis: Section 401(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, revision shall not be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. After the proviso to Section 372, a victim has an independent statutory right of appeal against acquittal, and a complainant has the remedy under Section 378(4) in appropriate cases. Therefore, where such appellate remedy exists but is not pursued, revision is barred and the party must be relegated to the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable at the instance of the victim when the appellate remedy was available and not availed.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court must pass a judicial order before treating a revision as an appeal under the Code.

Analysis: Under Section 401(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court may treat a revision as an appeal only if it is satisfied that the revision was filed under the erroneous belief that no appeal lay and that such conversion is necessary in the interests of justice. That satisfaction must be recorded through a judicial order, even if formal, before the revision can be dealt with as an appeal.

Conclusion: A judicial order recording the requisite satisfaction is mandatory before conversion of a revision into an appeal.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants was set aside, and the matters were remitted for treatment as appeals and decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to convert an acquittal into a conviction, and where an appellate remedy exists, revision at the instance of the party entitled to appeal is barred unless the High Court formally and judicially exercises its power to convert the revision into an appeal under Section 401(5).

---