Can High Court convert acquittal into conviction in exercise of revisional powers under S. 401 CrPC? What Supreme Court held

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a High Court is prohibited from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its powers of revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy]..After considering previous judgments on the issue as well as clause 3 of Section 401, the Bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna held,"...it has to be held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.".The Bench framed the following issues and answered them thus:1. Whether the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC is justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the accused by converting the finding of acquittal into one of conviction?Sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC bars the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.Though the High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure, after giving its own findings on the lower court order acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial court and/or the first appellate court, as the case may be.If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, the High Court has two options available: (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate court to rehear the appeal; or(ii) in an appropriate case, remit the matter to the trial court for retrial.2. In a case where the victim has a right of appeal against the order of acquittal, now as provided under Section 372 CrPC and the victim has not availed such a remedy and has not preferred the appeal, whether the revision application is required to be entertained at the instance of a party/victim instead of preferring an appeal?In a case where the victim/complainant has not availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4) CrPC, the revision application filed against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant shall not be entertained. The answer lies in sub-section (4) of Section 401 CrPC itself, the Court ruled.3. While exercising the powers under sub-section (5) of Section 401 CrPC treating the revision application as petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly, the High Court is required to pass a judicial order?The High Court has to pass a judicial order to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal. This is subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so..The Court was dealing with an appeal arising out of a judgment of the Madras High Court, which in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, set aside an order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court and convicted the accused..The Chief Judicial Magistrate's court had convicted the accused under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted them of charges under Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC.The accused preferred criminal appeals before the first appellate court, which allowed the same and acquitted the accused. The victims thereafter moved the High Court under a criminal revision application. While exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and ordered conviction. The accused thereafter challenged the High Court order before the top court. .After answering the questions framed in the case, the apex court aside the order of the High Court and held,"However, considering the fact that even otherwise being victims they are having the statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as petition of appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with law and on their own merits. The same would be in the interests of all, namely, the victims as well as the accused, as the appellate Court would have a wider scope and jurisdiction as an appellate Court, rather than the revisional court.".Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu appeared for the accused. Advocate Joseph Aristotle appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu..[Read Judgment]