ORDER

1. The judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 11.01.2023 in Criminal Case No.3668 of 2019 acquitting the accused under sections 406, 420, 506(2) of the IPC was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2023 under section 372 of the Cr.P.C. before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, whereby on hearing the parties, the appeal came to be dismissed and the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate came to be confirmed.

2. The de facto complainant is before this Court under the revision jurisdiction under section 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023. The prayer is made by way of paragraph 6(B) as under:

“6(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the 4th Add. Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2023 whereby the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.01.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.3668 of 2019 by the JMFC, Mahesana was confirmed and further YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to remand the case of the applicant to the JMFC, Mahesana for reconsideration and/or to convict the accused in the interest of judtice.”

3. Learned advocate Mr. Jay R.Shah for the applicant referring to the grounds raised and the orders passed by the learned JMFC and the Additional Sessions Judge, submitted that both the courts had committed serious error by not considering the provision of sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Advocate Mr. Shah stated that MOU, which was for the distributorship of North Zone and three other districts were given to the applicant and because of that he had deposited Rupees One Crore with the accused, which meant that the accused could not directly make sale or give distributorship of the product to someone else, while in breach of condition and with the very initial intention of cheating, had given the distributorship to someone else behind the back of the applicant within short time after executing MOU.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Shah, thus, stated that the very intention of the accused was required to be considered and appreciated by the learned Judge to lay down the conviction and thus, stated that there is a grave error of law, which has resulted into failure of justice in acquitting the accused.

3.2 Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that the documents, though clearly establishes the obligation of the accused, the breach with dishonest intention has not been appreciated and thus, the order of acquittal becomes illegal, unjust, improper and against the settled provisions of law.

4. There are two fold prayers made, one to remand the case of the applicant to the JMFC, Mahesana for reconsideration and for convicting the accused in the interest of justice.

4.1 Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 by laying down the High Court’s power of revision has clarified under sub-section (3) of section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, that such power shall not deem to authorise the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

4.2 Sub-section (3) of section 442 of BNSS, 2023 is reproduced herein below:

“442 (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”

5. Thus, when both the courts have acquitted the accused and when this Court under the revisional jurisdiction has no power to convert the order of acquittal into conviction, thus the present revision for that prayer is not maintainable, hence is required to be rejected.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has referred to the grounds and has tried to submit that the orders impugned is required to be examined for the correctness and legality.

7. In the case of Sheetala Prasad & Ors. v. Sri Kant & Anr., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 190, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the revisional power and the proper mode to be exercised by the High Court and the scope of interference, where the revision preferred is by the private complainant (State or a