GOSWAMI, J.: This application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magis­trate. First Class (Judicial), Karimganj, in a case instituted on a complaint. 2. The prosecution case was that on llth November, 1962, accused persons cut away paddy from the land in possession of the complainant and on his protest, they assaulted him and his sons, when they later intervened. 19 accused persons were charged under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and two of them were separately charged under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Magistrate at the end of the trial held that the complainant could not prove by any reliable evidence that he was in exclusive possession of the disputed land. On the other hand, he found that the defence established that the land was in possession of accused Lalu and Sonua and that they bad been enjoying it peacefully until the date of occurrence. He further held that the accused had a right to protect their property in exercise of their right of self defence. In this view of the mattes; after appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the ac­cused persons. 4. The complainant obtained this Rule on 6th of May. 1966. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Bhattacharjee. the learned Counsel for the ap­posite parties, regarding maintainability of this revision application at the instance of the complainant. He submits that sec­tion 439 (5) of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure is a bar to this application since the complainant in this case instituted on a complaint had a right 'of appeal under section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that sec­tion 439 (5) of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure is a bar to this application since the complainant in this case instituted on a complaint had a right 'of appeal under section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We may read section 439 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure "439 (5) Where under this Code an ap­peal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed." We may also read section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "417 (3) 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 acquittal, the com­plainant may present such an appeal to the High Court" It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the case was instituted on a complaint, and, as such, an appeal lay to the High Court against the judgment of acquittal under section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence section 439 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code is attracted, and the revision appli­cation does not lie. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar on behalf of the petitioner that section 417 (3) gives the complain­ant a very restricted right of appeal, if any. The complainant cannot straight­way submit an appeal to the High Court, He has to obtain special leave from the High Court before he can present an ap­peal That being the position, the learn­ed Counsel contends that no appeal lay to the High Court as such within the meaning of section 439 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The complainant cannot straight­way submit an appeal to the High Court, He has to obtain special leave from the High Court before he can present an ap­peal That being the position, the learn­ed Counsel contends that no appeal lay to the High Court as such within the meaning of section 439 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary also to read sections 417(1) and 417 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this context "417 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Pro­secutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court." * * * (5) It, In any case, the application under sub-section (3) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquit­tal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-sec­tion (1)." Reading sections 417 (1) and 417 (5) to­gether, it is clear that the scheme under section 417 envisages two equal rights of appeal, one to the State Government or the Central Government under S. 417 (2), as the case may be, and the other to a private complainant. These two rights are at par and although a screening is envisaged under section 417 (1) to do away with the frivolous appeals against acquittals, the right of appeal as such has not been affected. The right to obtain special leave which is a step in the pro­cess of the appeal is intimately integrated with the right of appeal itself and one cannot be divorced from the other. It is clearly provided under section 417 (5) that once a special leave for appeal is refused, the Government's right of appeal is barred under this section. It, there­fore, cannot be argued that the right of appeal under section 417 (1) is no right at all and it is absolutely clear that an appeal against a judgment of acquittal in a complaint case does lie to the High Court alone under this section and the provisions of S. 439 (5) will be attract­ed in case the complainant does not choose to take recourse to this remedy and proceed to move the High Court in revision. The view we have taken in this case receives support in some deci­sions of the several High Courts, name­ly AIR 1956 Mys 62. Nagathihalli v. N. Thimmasetty Gowda; AIR 1958 Punj 228, Shiv Prashad v. Bhagwan Das. AIR 1959 Bom 94 , State of Bombay v. N. G. Taya-wada, AIR 1959 All 413 , City Board Mus-sorie v. Sri Kishan Lai; AIR 1960 All 296 , Ram Narain v. Mool Chand and AIR 1966 Orissa 45, Dukhishyam Sahu v. Bidya-dhar Sahu. After we had closed the hearing of the case Mr. Bhattacharjee drew our attention to an unreported Spe­cial Bench decision of this Court in Cri­minal Reference No. 54 of 1959 D/- 17-5-1960 (Assam), Kartic Teli v. Bachahon Mahto, wherein the same view was taken of the provisions of sections 417 (3) and 439 (5) of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure. The Court held as follows: "In this case the order of acquittal would have been challenged by way of appeal by the complainant under the pro­visions of Section 417 (3), and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 439 (5), no revision can be entertained. * * * If there is a right of appeal and that light is not availed of, then the party aggrieved cannot come to this court by way of revision and this matter is now well settled." 6. The fact that a revision applica­tion does not lie at the instance of the complainant would not, however, affect the High Court's powers under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pass suitable orders in an appropriate case when its attention is otherwise drawn to grave injustice or when it suo motu calls for certain records of the subordi­nate courts. This is, however, not a case where we may be induced to take action in exercise of those powers. 7. The application is dismissed and the Rule Is discharged. 8. M. C. PATHAK, J.: I agree. Application dismissed.