1. The short point involved in these petitions is whether this Court should invoke its revisional jurisdiction for examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the order of acquittal in a case at the instance of the de facto complainant. This Court in the decision in Abraham v. Thankamma (1975 KLT 451) held that revision petitions arising from matters pending in courts subordinate to the Sessions Judge should at the first instance be filed before the Sessions Judge. The petitions which came up in Abraham v. Thankamma (1975 KLT 451) did not relate to acquittal. The present petitions were referred to a Division Bench since it was contended before the Single Judge that a revision against the order of acquittal stands on a different footing and as it was urged that S.402 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure has not been adverted to in the above decision. Before considering these aspects, it may not be out of place to refer generally to the relevant provisions of the old Code of Criminal procedure and some of the changes effected in the new Code.

2. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, powers of revision were conferred on the High Court, Sessions Judge and the