JUDGMENT B. Mukerji, J. - This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr recommending that an acquittal made by the Magistrate beset aside. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference briefly were these. The Municipal Board of Bulandshahr made certain bye-laws under the provisions of Section 298H(m) of the Municipalities Act whereby they said that no one could use loudspeakers or other electrically or mechanically operated means of producing loud noise whether stationery or fitted to motor lorries or other moving vehicles within the limits of Bulandshahr municipality without permission to use such loudspeakers. The bye-laws prescribed scale of fees for obtaining the permission. The opposite parties indulged in advertising cinema films with the aid of loudspeakers within the municipal limits of the town of Bulandshahr without obtaining the necessary permission as required under the bye-laws framed by the Municipality. 3. The learned Magistrate acquitted the opposite parties on grounds which do not appear at all sound. The learned Judge who had made the reference has characterised the learned Magistrate's reasoning as 'hair-splitting'. I must say that the reasoning of the Magistrate did perilously border on hair-splitting. There would have been little difficulty in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the merits but there is a very serious difficulty in the way of setting aside that order in this reference. And the difficulty arises because of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure which is in these words: Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by wav of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party which could have appealed. 4. Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure has undergone an amendment and by Sub-section (3) of that section a complainant has been granted a right of appeal against an acquittal though that right of appeal is not as wide a right as has been accorded to the State for Sub-section (3) of Section 417 is in these words: If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquirable, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. 5. It was contended by Mr. 5. It was contended by Mr. Shambhu Prasad that there was no 'right of appeal' given to the complainant. All the right that was given to the complainant according to him was to approach the High Court for "special leave" and if special leave had been granted then alone the right to appeal vested in the complainant and not otherwise. 1 must concede that this argument of Mr. Shambhu Prasad looks attractive but in my opinion it is not sound. u/s 417(3) of the Code a right of appeal has been given to the complainant though that right was a qualified one in so far as the right could not ensure to the benefit of a complainant unless he was able to obtain special leave to appeal from the High Court. Sub-section (5) of Section 439 speaks of a right of appeal under the Code. There was a right of appeal under the Code as I have pointed out and therefore Sub-section (5) of Section 439 was a bar to the entertainment of an application in revision against an order of acquittal. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in State of Bombay Vs. N.G. Tayawade and Another, AIR 1959 Bom 94 . 6. I have yet another reason for coming to the conclusion that this revision by the complainant should not be entertained. The right which has been given to the complainant to file an appeal after obtaining special leave of the High Court u/s 417(3) is much wider right than a right of revision. It is a right which entitles the complainant to take the appellate court through the entire evidence and to have a re-assessment of that evidence. In a revision the High Court cannot turn an acquittal into a conviction. It can only order a retrial. Therefore, the relief which the High Court can give in a Revision is a much narrower relief. If a complainant has not chosen to approach this Court u/s 417(3) then in my opinion he has no right to approach this Court by way of revision. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the revision to the Judge and the consequent reference to this Court by him was not competent. 7. If a complainant has not chosen to approach this Court u/s 417(3) then in my opinion he has no right to approach this Court by way of revision. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the revision to the Judge and the consequent reference to this Court by him was not competent. 7. For the reasons given above I reject this reference and dismiss the application in revision of the Municipal Board and uphold the acquittal of the opposite parties.