A private party lacks standing to challenge an acquittal when the State does not appeal, and courts have limited scope in revising acquittals.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court below in Criminal Appeal No. 8(2) of 1978 and Criminal Appeal No.14 (2) of 1978. The learned Sessions Judge disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment dated 29th Aug, 1979. The Criminal Appeal No.8(2) of 1978 was preferred against the order of conviction of the accused (Respondent No. 1 herein) who was convicted under S.304 - A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court. While considering to inflict the sentence, the learned trial court released the accused with certain conditions under S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act but imposed penalty of a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with a direction to pay the said amount of penalty to the family of the deceased within three months from the date of the order. The other appeal, viz. Criminal Appeal No. 44(2) of 1978 was preferred by the State against the order of release of the accused under the provision of S. 4 of the . The learned Sessions Judge heard both the appeals together and by a common judgment acquitted the accused by setting aside the conviction and sentence inflicted on him. The State of Manipur has not preferred any appeal or revision, as the case may be, against the impugned order of acquittal which fact has been confirmed by Mr. Munindra Kumar Singh, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. This revision petition is presented by a private party, the widow of the deceased, who was even also not examined by the prosecution as witness in the trial. The petitioner in this revision petition had challenged the propriety and legality of the judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

2. We have heard Mr. Ibobi Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyananda Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 (accused). We have also heard Mr. Munindra Kumar Singh, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. In this revision petition we are called upon to consider two pertinent legal aspects of the matter as appearing before us in course of submissions of the learned counsel of the parties. They are - (i) whether a private party can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a revision petition under S. 401/397, Cr. P.C. against the order of acquittal while the State did not prefer any appeal or revision against such an order of acquittal? (ii) How far and in what manner the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction while dealing with a revision petition of such nature?
Before we take up these two legal points in the context of the submissions of the learned counsel of the respective parties, it would be necessary to have a cursory glance of the facts of the case.

4. The incident relating to this revision petition took place about a decade back in the year 1975. According to the prosecution, on 12-4-75 at about 11.30 A.M. in a room of constable Kunjo Singh in the first floor of a double storied building which was used as a police barrack at Singjamei Police Station, the accused Mangi Singh respondent No. 1), a Sub-Inspector of Police, and Md. Sahabuddin (the deceased), Sub-Inspector of Police, who was then Officer - in - charge of the said Police Station along with one L. Iboton Singh were having a party in the said room. When the party was over at about 11.40 A. M. Sahabuddin asked the accused to give him some ammunition of his pistol and while the accused was negotiating his 99 MM pistol, it went off and a bullet hit Sahabuddin on t