S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THESE criminal revision applications have been preferred by the petitioners against the findings of acquittal passed by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court.
(2.) IN almost all the cases, as the findings of acquittal have been challenged on the ground that they are not in conformity with the evidence on record, the question arises is: "Whether a revision application under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr. P.C. against the finding of acquittal is maintainable or not on the ground that the finding arrived at by the trial court below is perverse and/or it has been passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record." Before deciding the issue, it is necessary to notice the decisions of Supreme Court regarding revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against a finding of acquittal.
(3.) IN the case of D. Stephens vs. Nosibolla, reported in A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 196, the Supreme Court held: '' "The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Government has a right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on the record." ;