1. It is argued for accused that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for revision in the case of an acquittal. It is however clear from the language of Section 39 read with Section 430 of the Criminal Procedure Code that this Court has jurisdiction to interfere even in such cases It has, however, been consistently laid down by this Court that it will not interfere with cases of acquittal when Government has not appealed except in extreme cases. This has been held both when a private party has moved the court and also when a District Magistrate has done so, but the present reference is made by a Sessions Judge who has not the same facilities as a District Magistrate for moving Government to file an appeal. Although the rule of non-interference might be somewhat relaxed in cases referred by a Sessions Judge, yet we think it would be wrong to interfere even in such references unless we are convinced that serious injustice has been caused by error of law.
2. In the present case although we agree with the Sessions Judge's view of the law, we think the case is one of such a petty nature that we must refuse to interfere with an order of acquittal. Let the papers be returned to the Sessions Judge.