Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court has held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

Moreover, the Court added that the High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the Court, acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the Trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be.

Another question was posed for consideration of the top court, namely, that in a case where no appeal is brought though appeal lies under the Code, whether revision application is still to be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed?

In this regard, the Court noted that after the amendment in Section 372 CrPC after 2009 and insertion of proviso to Section 372 CrPC, a victim has a statutory right of appeal against the order of acquittal. Therefore, no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal.

"Even the same would be in the interest of the victim himself/herself as while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court", added a bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna.

The bench further observed that the High Court has to pass a judicial order to treat the application for revision as petition of appeal, as mentioned under sub-section (5) of Section 401, CrPC.

"The High Court has to pass a judicial order because sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. provides that if the High Court is satisfied that such revision application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do. While treating with the application for revision as petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly, the High Court has to record the satisfaction as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C", added the Court.

An appeal was preferred by one Joseph Stephen along with two other being aggrieved by an order of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, by which the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, had set aside the order of acquittal passed by the first appellate Court and had convicted the appellant-accused.

In light of the provisions as discussed above, the top Court deemed it fit to remit the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as petition of appeals under Section 372 CrPC and to decide the same in accordance with law and on their own merits.

"The same would be in the interests of all, namely, the victims as well as the accused, as the appellate Court would have a wider scope and jurisdiction as an appellate Court, rather than the revisional court", held the bench.

Cause Title: Joseph Stephen and others vs Santhanasamy and others