The central legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction in cases of acquittal and the limitations on converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the informant at whose instance Telaiya P.S. Case No. 266 of 2007 was registered against the accused Manoj Kumar Chandrabanshi and Tuntun Kumar Chandrabanshi under section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).

2. By judgment dated 15th May 2014 in T.R. No. 33 of 2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma convicted and sentenced the accused to RI for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under section 420 IPC and RI for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- each under section 120B IPC.

3. Both the convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014 against the aforesaid judgment of conviction before the Court of sessions and by judgment dated 9th February 2015 the District and Additional Sessions Judge Sessions Court No. 1, Koderma set aside the judgment of conviction recorded in T.R. No. 33 of 2014 and allowed Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014.

4. Against the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014, the informant has preferred the present criminal revision petition.

5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner takes the Court through the materials on record to submit that the judgment in T.R. No. 33 of 2014 convicting the accused has been interfered by the appellate Court on such grounds which are not supported by the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accused persons with an intention to cheat approached the informant and induced him to enter into the agreement with respect to a property which was under litigation and, therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly held that the accused had intention to cheat from the very beginning and were liable to be convicted under section 420 IPC.

6. Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 supporting the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014 submits that the law on the subject has been well settled long back in Akalu Ahir vs. Ramdeo Ram, (1973) 2 SCC 583. The learned counsel would further place reliance on the judgments in Venkatesan vs. Rani, (2013) 14 SCC 207 and Ganesha vs. Sharanappa, (2014) 1 SCC 87.

7. In Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that minute scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties before the lower fora is not permissible and it is only such illegality in law committed by the Courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court which can be said to be perverse or leading to manifest injustice and thereby causing miscarriage of justice which would invite exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. In “Venkatesan” the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the powers of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the High Court cannot do what the sessions Court would not have done. It was held so in the light of sub-section (3) to section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which puts a bar on the powers of the revisional Court to convert an order of acquittal into conviction. The aforesaid context keeping in mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional powers under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can remand a matter for retrial and that too only in exceptional cases in which it is brought on record that the order/judgment of the sessions Court is patently illegal or has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice. Putting a word of caution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “as the language of section 401 of the code makes it amply clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”

9. In “Venkatesan” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“7. To answer the questions that have arisen in the present case, as noticed a