JUDGMENT This revision arises out of the order of conviction of the applicant under section 4 (iv) of (The) Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (for short; 'the Act') and sentence of three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default, simple imprisonment for one month, passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1986 on 11.2.1987. Shri B. L. Bhargava, counsel appearing for the applicant/accused, contended that on prosecution under section 3 (b) and 4(iv) of the Act, the trial Court acquitted the applicant under S. 4 (iv) against which, no appeal or revision was preferred by the State. On appeal by the applicant against his conviction, the appellate Court acquitted the applicant under S. 3 (b) of the Act, but convicted under S.4 (iv) of the Act, as stated in para 1 above. Placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Narayana, AIR 1962 SC 240 , counsel contended that when an accused, acquitted of some charges and convicted on other, prefers appeal against his conviction, the appellate Court cannot convict the appellant on the charges on which he is acquitted, nor the appellate Court can order retrial on charges on which accused was acquitted. Shri M.G. Khedkar, Additional Govt. Advocate, submitted that the appellate or revisional powers are wide, and on the material on record, if the offence is made out, an order of conviction can be passed, in exercise of power under S. 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion, the contention of the learned Additional Govt. Advocate cannot be accepted. Section 386 (b) (i) is clearly confined to appeals preferred against conviction and sentence, the powers under this provision cannot be exercised for reversing an order of acquittal passed in favour of an accused. "Reverse the finding" means the finding of guilt and sentence. In sub- clause (ii) "alter the finding" means to alter the finding of conviction and not finding of acquittal. See T. Narayan's case (supra) and Lakhan Mehto's case, AIR 1966 SC 1742 . The appellate Court in the absence of appeal against acquittal, in my opinion, could not have exercised the powers under section 386 (e) of the Code, to make any order which ought to have been given or made by the Court below. See T. Narayan's case (supra) and Lakhan Mehto's case, AIR 1966 SC 1742 . The appellate Court in the absence of appeal against acquittal, in my opinion, could not have exercised the powers under section 386 (e) of the Code, to make any order which ought to have been given or made by the Court below. In view of the settled position of law, the revision is allowed, conviction and sentence under S. 4 (iv) of the Act is set aside, applicant is acquitted of the charge u/s. 4 (iv), bail bonds shall stand discharged. AIR 1962 SC 240 and AIR 1966 SC 1742 followed.