JUDGMENT By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in a case started on a complaint by opposite party no. 1 against the petitioners. 2. The present petitioners were summoned under section 457/380 IPC and Sri B. Ali, Judicial Magistrate, Kalna adjourned the case no. C.R. 239/75 to 23.8.76 for examination of the P.Ws. On that day an application was filed for allowing time for examination of witnesses, but the learned Magistrate by his order dated 13.8.76 rejected the prayer and acquitted the accused persons. 3. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the Magistrate has no authority even to discharge the accused persons but he acquitted them after rejecting the petition for adjournment. As it was in utter disregard of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as the order of acquittal was not based on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Judge observed that the Sessions Court in revision had ample power to set the matter right. In this view of the matter the impugned order was set aside and the learned Magistrate was directed to proceed according to law. 4. On reference to sections 378(4) and 401 (4) Cr. P.C. it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the remedy of the opposite party was not in filing an application for revision but was to file a regular appeal against the order of acquittal on obtaining special leave from the High Court. As the provision for appeal is provided against the order of acquittal and as no appeal was preferred, section 401 (4) bars a private party from having recourse to a revision petition, In support of his argument the learned Advocate relies on the decisions of the Mysore High Court in (1) Chairman Village Panchayath Nagathihalli v. Thimmaselty Gowda, reported in AIR 1956 Mysor page 62 and of the Supreme Court in (2) Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda and ors, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1153 . He also cites the decision in (3) Khatra Basi Samal and anr. etc. v. Stale of Orissa etc. reported in AIR 1970 SC 272 , to show that the Supreme Court only in exceptional cases would exercise the power of revision when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal. 5. He also cites the decision in (3) Khatra Basi Samal and anr. etc. v. Stale of Orissa etc. reported in AIR 1970 SC 272 , to show that the Supreme Court only in exceptional cases would exercise the power of revision when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal. 5. The present case was started against the petitioners under section 457/380 IPC. These offences being not compoundable and being cognizable, in the absence of the complainant the learned Magistrate could not discharge the accused persons under section 249 Cr.P.C., After exhausting all the processes against the witnesses cited by the complainant for attendance the learned Magistrate, of course, could discharge the accused persons under section 245(2) for reasons to be recorded by him, and if he wall of the opinion that the charge was groundless. But instead of doing so he acquitted the accused persons. 6. In support of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge the learned advocate for the opposite party no. 1 refers to a decision of Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmad and the king Emperor reported in 63 IA 372, wherein it is laid down that the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be clone in that way to the exclusion-of all other methods of performance 'of not at' all, is applicable to a Magistrate, who is a Judicial Officer. The lame view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in (4) Ramchandra Keshar Adke v. Gobind Joti Chavare & ors, reported in AIR 1975 SC 915 . The learned Counsel also refers to the decision of the Nagpur High Court in the case of (5) Khilawan Singh v. Emperor, reported in 38 Cr. L. J. 334. It is held therein that ordinarily the High Court will interfere but rarely revision with acquittals, particularly so in cases where the correctness of the acquittal cannot be considered without a consideration of the evidence, but when a case cames to the notice of the High Court where the acquittal has depended not an appreciation of the evidence but has occurred in complete disregard of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court should interfere despite the fact that no appeal has been preferred. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge that under the present Criminal Procedure Code (Act No II of 1974) section 397 vested both the High Court and the Sessions Court with identical powers of revision. 7. In this case the learned Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction or power to acquit the accused persons in the absence of the complainant. It goes without saying that there was a glaring defect in the procedure and there was a manifest manifest on a point of law and consequently there had been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. That being the position, the learned Sessions Judge wall amply justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 397 Cr. PC for setting the matter right. It should also be remembered that the order of acquittal was not passed on appreciation of evidence. So the learned Sessions Judge seems to be perfectly justified in rectifying the illegality, irregularity, impropriety or in other words mistake appearing on the face of the order itself. In this view of the matter the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge not being without jurisdiction does not warrant interference. 8. In the result, this application for revision fails and the Rule is accordingly discharged.