A revisional court can interfere with an order of acquittal only in exceptional cases, such as when there has been a manifest error of law or procedure, or when the Trial Court has illegally shut out evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered, or when material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions judge setting aside the order of acquittal of the petitioners for the alleged offences under section 498a/323 of the Indian Penal Code and directing their re-trial, the petitioners moved this criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were placed on trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, uttar Dinajpur, Raigunge to answer a charge under section 323/498a of the indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate by a judgment and order dated July 29, 2003, acquitted the petitioners of the said charges. Against the said order of acquittal the opposite party No. 2, the de facto-complainant of the case moved a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, uttar Dinajpur. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Raigunge, Uttar Dinajpur by his judgment and order dated January 21, 2005 set aside the said order of acquittal and remanded back the said case to the Trial Court for fresh trial directing that during such fresh trial the de facto -complainant be permitted to examine all the FIR named unexamined witnesses.

( 3 ) MR. Madhusudan Sur, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioners, firstly submitted before this Court that Sessions Judge is not legally authorised to exercise his revisional power against an order of acquittal, Mr. Sur further submitted while setting aside the order of acquittal of the petitioners the learned Judge has deviated from the settled legal position as regards to the power of the Court, to interfere with an order of acquittal in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. According to Mr. Sur, the order of examination of the witnesses not examined during the original trial shall cause serious prejudice to the accused petitioners leading to failure of justice. Mr. Sur thus prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. Mr. Chittaranjan Chakraborty, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto-complainant submitted before this Court that not only on facts but in law the contention of Mr. Sur is not tenable and prayed for dismissal of this revision. Whereas, Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State also pressed for dismissal of this criminal revision and submitted the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to warrant interference of this Court.

( 4 ) HEARD, the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Perused the materials on records, viz. the judgments of both the Courts below, the depositions of the witnesses and other materials on records. Considered the rival submissions of the parties.

( 5 ) IN the instant criminal revision the first point which comes for consideration of this Court, whether a criminal revision against an order of acquittal lies before a Court of Sessions. The section 399 of the Code of Criminal procedure delineate the Sessions Judges power of revision. According to the said provisions, in any proceeding by way of revision, the Sessions Judge is empowered to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401 of the Code and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 of the Code shall, so far as may be, apply to such revlsional proceedings and references in the said sub-sections to the High court shall be construed as references to Sessions Judge. It would not be out of place to note that section 400 of the Code empowered an Additional Sessions Judge to exercise all the powers vested on the Sessions judge, under Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the Sessions Court is very much empowered to entertain a criminal revision against an order of acquittal.

( 6 ) NOW the next question arises for consideration whether the Court below was justified and acted well within the ambit of its revisional power to interfere with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document