J. C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 2-6-2000 passed by Sri Dhani Ram, Special Judge, SC/st Act, Pilibhit allowing the revision filed by opposite party No. 1 against the order of the Magistrate dated 10-11-1997 whereby accused/applicant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 406, IPC and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the case before the learned Magistrate proceeded on a complaint filed by opposite party No. 1 which ultimately resulted into acquittal of the applicant. Against this order of acquittal opposite party No. 1 filed revision before the Sessions Judge which has been allowed by the impugned order and the case has been sent back to the trial Court for a fresh decision in the light of observations made in the body of order. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that learned Special Judge has committed gross illegality in allowing the revision totally overlooking the fact that revision itself was not legally maintainable in view of the bar created under sub-section (4) of Section 401 of the Cr. P. C. which provides that where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. By virtue of Section 399 (1), Cr. P. C. Sessions Judge is empowered to exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401. Since the powers of the High Court in revision are restricted under sub-section (4) of Section 401, Cr. P. C. the same restriction would also apply in relation to the powers of Sessions Judge as well. As already stated above sub-section (4) of Section 401 in clear words lays down that when appeal under this Code lies at the instance of the party who could have appealed and if no such appeal is brought, revision is not maintainable. ( 5 ) THE question that now arises for consideration is whether any appeal lies againstan order of acquittal in a case instituted upon complaint. In this connection, we may refer to sub-section (4) of Section 378, Cr. ( 5 ) THE question that now arises for consideration is whether any appeal lies againstan order of acquittal in a case instituted upon complaint. In this connection, we may refer to sub-section (4) of Section 378, Cr. P. C. which runs as under :" (4) 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 High Court". ( 6 ) SINCE the complainant could have filed an appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate, under sub-section (4) of Section 378, revision filed before the Sessions Judge, by the complainant was clearly not maintainable in view of the bar created by sub-section (4) of Section 401, Cr. P. C. Once revision itself was not legally maintainable, the impugned order setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate acquitting the applicant cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 2-6-2000 is set aside. Revision allowed. .