Judgement

CHANDRACHUD, J.:- The narrow question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether in the exercise of its revisional powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was justified in ordering a re-trial of the appellants. The revision application before the High Court was filed by a private party in a case which was not instituted upon a complaint.

2. It is alleged that on the night of June 26, 1972 the appellants committed the murder of one Tata and caused grievous injuries to seven others. The Learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnanam, acquitted the appellants of all the charges levelled against them. As against the order of acquittal Peda Appadu, a brother of the deceased filed a revision application in the High Court. Taking the view that the learned Sessions Judge had wholly overlooked the evidence of P. Ws. 5, 7, 8 and 12 to 15 and that he had wrongly treated the First Information Report as a piece of substantive evidence in the case, the High Court set aside the acquittal and directed a retrial of the appellants.

3. Section 439 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in exercise of revis