SUMEET GOEL, J.

*****

Present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot (for short, ‘the trial Court’), whereby respondents No. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges framed against them by extending the benefit of doubt. The present petition also seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-complainant against the aforesaid judgment dated 12.06.2014 came to be dismissed.

2. Facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner, being the complainant, got registered FIR No.140 dated 28.12.2011 under Sections 448, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot. In the said FIR, it was alleged that during the intervening night of 24.12.2011 and 25.12.2011, respondents No. 2 and 3, in furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal trespass by forcibly entering into the shop of the petitioner-complainant, which was stated to be in his possession, with an intention to threaten and cause injury to him.

3. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented and respondents No.2 and 3 were put to trial. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record as also the submissions advanced by the rival parties, acquitted respondents No.2 and 3, vide judgment dated 12.06.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the petitioner – complainant had preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28.01.2016, thereby affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court.

3.1. The petitioner – complainant, aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking setting aside of the aforesaid judgments passed by the learned trial Court as also Sessions Judge. However, it is well-settled law that the scope of revision is limited and does not entail re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.

4. The petition in hand seeks to impugn the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Courts below. However, Section 401 (3) of Cr. P.C., 1973, imposes an explicit statutory prohibition against the High Court converting a finding of acquittal into a conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The issue regarding maintainability, given this unequivocal status embargo, was dealt with by this Court in the case of CRR-647-2023 titled as Ajeet Singh versus Inderjeet and others, decided on 13.10.2025, wherein it was held as under:

“7.1. The High Court wields a crucial revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C./ Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS. This jurisdiction is fundamentally supervisory in nature, empowering the superior courts to scrutinize the records of any subordinate criminal court. The primary objective thereof is to ascertain the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order passed by the subordinate court, and to ensure the regularity of its proceedings. The legislative design behind these provisions is to vest broad powers in the revisional court(s). This expansive language reflects a clear intention to establish an effective mechanism for rectifying any manifest error, illegality, or impropriety that may have occurred in the proceedings before a subordinate court. In essence, revisional jurisdiction serves as a vital avenue for an aggrieved individual to seek redress against an erroneous order or proceeding of a subordinate court. However, even in this broad grant of power, the legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed specific, circumscribed limitations. The revisional jurisdiction, much like a carefully calibrated instrument, is explicitly unavailable against int