Revisional courts cannot disturb acquittals absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner, the victim and informant, alleged that the accused obstructed access to his room and store by installing an iron grill and door.

The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 341 IPC, finding that the prosecution had not proved who installed the obstruction.

The victim’s appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, which held that an appeal against acquittal was not maintainable before it, but also considered the merits.

The victim then filed this revision challenging the lower courts’ decisions

1. Whether a victim’s appeal against an acquittal by a Magistrate lies before the Court of Sessions under Section 372 CrPC.

2. Whether the acquittal disclosed a jurisdictional error or other basis for interference in revision, including in light of the evidence concerning the iron gate and the deferred cross-examination of the defence witness.

Section 372 CrPC permits a victim to appeal against an acquittal to the court to which an appeal against conviction by that court ordinarily lies; for an acquittal by a Magistrate, that court is the Court of Sessions, as explained in Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is supervisory, not appellate: the court examines the correctness, legality, or propriety of the lower court’s order and should not reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. Intervention is justified where, for example, the finding is perverse, legally untenable, based on irrelevant or no material, or reflects arbitrary exercise of discretion, as stated in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah and the authorities discussed there.

The Sessions Court was wrong to hold that the victim’s appeal was not maintainable before it; Section 372 CrPC placed the appeal before the Sessions Court.

That error did not, however, warrant setting aside the acquittal in revision.

The prosecution witnesses admitted that they had not seen the grill or gate being installed, while the defence witness’s account concerned a gate installed at a different time and location from the obstruction alleged by the prosecution.

The Trial Court also acted properly in closing the prosecution’s opportunity to cross-examine the defence witness after the prosecution failed to produce the receipt it had sought to put to him.

The acquittal was therefore a reasonable view of the evidence, not a finding warranting revisional interference.

The revision petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.