Krishna Kumar, J.@mdashThis revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 29.7.1997, passed by Sri M.P. Singh, District Judge,
Saharanpur in Crilminal Revision No. 494 of 1996, whereby allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 28.10.1996, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. The Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur acquitted the accused persons charged for offence under Sections 498-A,
323, 406 and 504, I.P.C. The complainant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge who allowed the revision, set aside the order passed
by the learned Magistrate and remanded the case for decision in accordance with law and observations made in the body of the judgment. Against
this judgment and order, the revision has been filed. The learned Counsel for the revisionists contended that against acquittal, the revision could not
be filed in the Court of Session. However, learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the power of revision against acquittal vested
both in High Court as well as in Sessions Court in view of provision of Section 397, Cr. P.C. Learned Counsel for the revisionists, however, could
not show any case law in this point that the revision against the acquittal can only be entertained by this Court and not by the Sessions Court.
Although there may be practice for filing the revision against the acquittal before this Court but that does not take away the powers of the Sessions
Court u/s 397, Cr. P.C. to entertain a revision against acquittal. It may also be stated that in the old criminal procedure, practice was to file the
revision against the acquittal in the Court of Session u/s 435 of Code of 1898. When the jurisdiction is concurrent and equally vested in High Court
and the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can entertain a revision against the acquittal.
2. As far as merits are concerned, the learned lower court has not substituted its own finding about conviction, rather the Court of Session
remanded the case for retrial in accordance with law and in accordance with observations made in the body of the judgment. The learned Sessions
Judge only noted as to how the evidence and circumstances in the matrimonial cases should be considered. The learned Sessions Judge has not
given his own finding about any fact or evidence or documents. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the revisional court appreciated the evidence in
his own way.
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionists placing reliance upon Vimal Singh Vs. Khuman Singh and Another, , argued that the revisional court should
not interfere with the judgment of acquittal unless it suffers from illegality. Again, it may be stated that the learned Sessions Judge did not hold that
acquittal was illegal or incorrect rather set aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate directing him to re-try the case in the light of observations
where the learned Magistrate had failed to exercise its jurisdiction. In the above discussions, there is no force in this revision, which is hereby
dismissed.
