Summary
The High Court restored convictions while deciding victims’ revision applications against appellate acquittals. The Supreme Court held that Section 401(3) prohibited converting acquittal into conviction in revision. Where an appeal lay, revision at that party’s instance was barred; conversion into an appeal required a judicial order recording statutory satisfaction. The judgment was set aside and the matters remitted for treatment as victims’ appeals, with merits left open.
Issues
- Whether a revisional court could convert acquittal into conviction.
- How the victims’ appeal remedy and the power to convert revision into appeal applied.
Provisions considered
- Section 401(3)-(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Revision could not produce a conviction from acquittal; the appeal bar and conditional power of conversion required proper application and a judicial order. (¶ 8-12)
- Proviso to Section 372 and Section 378(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The victims had a statutory appeal remedy, distinguished from the special-leave route for a non-victim complainant in a complaint case. (¶ 10-12)
Held
- Even where exceptional illegality permits revisional interference with acquittal, Section 401(3) forbids the High Court from itself convicting. Depending on the court that acquitted and the circumstances, the lawful revisional course may be retrial or rehearing by the appropriate court, without dictating the ultimate outcome. (¶ 8-9)
- Under Section 401(4), a party entitled to appeal cannot instead obtain revision after failing to appeal. The victim’s statutory appeal under Section 372 was distinguished from a non-victim complainant’s appeal requiring special leave under Section 378(4). (¶ 10-10.2)
- Section 401(5) permits conversion only upon satisfaction that revision was filed under an erroneous belief that no appeal lay and that conversion is necessary in the interests of justice. The High Court must record that satisfaction in a judicial order; it cannot silently exercise appellate powers while deciding revision. (¶ 11)
- In view of the victims’ appeal rights, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed it to treat the revisions as appeals under Section 372 and decide them on their own merits. The Supreme Court did not adjudicate the evidence or finally determine guilt. (¶¶ 3.5, 12-14)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and matters remitted for treatment as Section 372 appeals and fresh decision on merits.