V. K. CHATURVEDI, J. Pyare Lal and seven others have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 24-12- 1988 passed by III Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1988 allowing the revision of the opposite party No. 2 and setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur dated 28-11-1987 in Criminal Case No. 430 of 1982 under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/ 325 IPC. 2. Heard Sri S. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA. None responds for opposite party No. 2 though the case is taken up in revised list. 3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that only the High Court has jurisdiction in the judgment and order of acquittal and, as such, the order passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge is bad in law. 4. The brief facts of the case are that P. W. 2 Bhogala lodged a report at police station Nautanwa with the allegation that on 13- 6-1987 at about 6 a. m. the revisionist No. 1 Pyare Lal came at his home and called him for Panchayat in Bera. He had asked his companions to remain present in Bera armed with lathies and spear etc. When Bhola came out of his house Pyare Lal caught hold of him and other accused started beating him with lathies and spear. On hearing his alarm his son Chhotakau, Jairam, Hariram, his wife Smt. Kailashi and one Dal Bahadur came to save him. The accused persons caused injuries to them also by lathies. Accused Prabhu caused injuries to Hari Ram and Smt. Kailashi with spear. On his report the case was investigated and the injuries were got medically examined. The Investigation Officer after completing the investigation submitted the charge- sheet against the revisionists. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined P. W. 1 Bhogala, P. W. 2 Chhotakau, P. W. 3 Jairam, P. W. 4 Dal Bahadur, P. W. 5 Hariram and P. W. 6 Smt. Kailashi. The genuineness of the documents filed by the prosecution was admitted by the defence counsel. 6. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined P. W. 1 Bhogala, P. W. 2 Chhotakau, P. W. 3 Jairam, P. W. 4 Dal Bahadur, P. W. 5 Hariram and P. W. 6 Smt. Kailashi. The genuineness of the documents filed by the prosecution was admitted by the defence counsel. 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence and examining the record acquitted the revisionists of the charges under Sections 323, 149, 148, 147, 324, 325 IPC. 7. I have carefully examined the findings recorded by the Courts below. P. W. 1 Bhogala informant stated the same story in his statement as stated in the First Information Report. He has also started that Bhola was having spear in his hand and the remaining accused were having lathies. Bhola caused him injuries by spear and the other accused persons caused injury to other injured persons by lathies. P. W. 2 Chhotakau stated that the accused persons were beating his father. When he tried to intervene they also caused injuries to him by lathies. When other witnesses came to rescue them they were also beaten by them. Accused Bhola was using spear and caused injuries by spear to Hariram and Kailash. P. W. 3 Jairam has stated that all the accused beated his father and his cross-examination he has admitted that Bhola was not having spear in his hand, but Prabhu was having the spear. He has also stated that he could not say that which accused persons were having lathies. P. W. 4 Dal Bahadur stated that Bhola caused injury by lathi on his chest. He could not tell who were other accused persons who were causing lathi injuries. He even could not tell the name of other accused persons and he was disbelieved by the Judicial Magistrate. P. W. 5 Hariram also stated that all the accused persons were beating Bhogala and when he and other injured persons came there they were also beaten by them. He stated that spear was in the hand of Prabhu, who caused injuries to him and Smt. Kailashi. He further stated that no blood was oozing from his injuries and no blood was found on his clothes. The trial Court after considering the statement of Hariram observed that if a persons receives injuries of spear then the blood should have come out from the injuries. He further stated that no blood was oozing from his injuries and no blood was found on his clothes. The trial Court after considering the statement of Hariram observed that if a persons receives injuries of spear then the blood should have come out from the injuries. As such, the trial Court recorded a finding that causing injuries by spear is doubtful. This witness also admitted that he is not in a position to tell the name of the persons who received injuries and admitted that blood was not coming out from the injuries of any injured person. He has also admitted that in Panchayat the accused persons were not having the lathies and spear, whereas P. W. 1 Bhogala and P. W. 2 Chhotakau have stated in their statements that accused persons were armed with lathies and spear. These witnesses also stated that the injuries of the injured persons were medically examined on the next date, because on the date of occurrence it was Sunday. This also creates doubt, because in a medico legal case the hospitals are never closed and the injured should have been medically examined on the same day. P. W. 6 Smt. Kailashi stated that Prabhu was armed with spear and all the injured persons were medically examined on the next date. She has also stated that she could not say as to who are the other persons who received the injuries. She was also disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that after receiving the spear injuries she went to her home and could not tell as to who are the other persons who received injuries in the incident. Two witnesses, Smt. Kailashi and Hariram stated that Prabhu caused them injuries by spear, while injuries received by Smt. Kailashi are lacerated and not pierced. Even the Doctor who examined the injuries and the Investigation Officer were not produced. In absence of Doctor it cannot be conclusively proved that the injuries received by any of the injured was that of spear. 8. After considering the entire material on record the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution story and recorded a finding that the prosecution is not able to prove its case against the revisionists beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted them by a detailed order dated 28-11-1987. 9. 8. After considering the entire material on record the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution story and recorded a finding that the prosecution is not able to prove its case against the revisionists beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted them by a detailed order dated 28-11-1987. 9. Aggrieved by this order of acquittal the opposite party No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1988 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, which was heard by III Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, who after considering the various submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction to examine the Doctor and the Investigating Officer and then pass the order in accordance with law. Before the lower revisional Court it was argued that the revision against the acquittal is not maintainable, as the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal before this Court. It was also contended that the revision against the acquittal by the complainant is maintainable before the High Court and not before the Sessions Judge. This argument was rejected by the lower revisional Court on the ground that it is well settled that the State Government may file appeal against the acquittal. The private party cannot file appeal against the acquittal but if the State Government does not file appeal, the complainant may file revision if the proper grounds for revision are available. According to Section 399 sub-clause 1 of Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section 1 of Section 401 Cr. P. C. Section 401 sub-clause 1 Cr. P. C. deals with the powers of the High Court under revision. It is evident from the reading of both the Sections that the powers of Sessions Judge and the High Court in respect of revision are concurrent. Therefore, in view of Sections 399 and 401 Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the acquittal. 10. There are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses about the injury caused by the accused persons as P. W. 1 Bhogala and P. W. 2 Chhotakau have stated that Bhola had caused spear injury while other injured witnesses have stated that Prabhu inflicted the spear injury. 10. There are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses about the injury caused by the accused persons as P. W. 1 Bhogala and P. W. 2 Chhotakau have stated that Bhola had caused spear injury while other injured witnesses have stated that Prabhu inflicted the spear injury. The three witnesses were disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that they did not told in their statement that who caused spear injury and even they did not told that who were the other accused persons who were having lathies. They have also stated that no blood was oozing from the injuries of injured persons who received injuries of spear and even the blood was not found on their clothes. 11. This Court in a case reported in 1979 Crl. LJ 1437, Chandrapal v. State, after considering the power conferred under Section 377 Cr. P. C. and 386 Cr. P. C. held as under: "reading both these Sections together it is clear that appeals on the question of sentence on the ground of inadequacy and against acquittal passed by the original or appellate Court lie only to the High Court. Appeals against convictions on the other hand lie to the Sessions Court, High Court and the Supreme Court depending upon the nature of each case. It is thus clear that when Section 386, Criminal P. C. refers in general; it speaks of the powers of the High Court as well as of the Court of Session without specifically mentioning those Courts in that Section. Nevertheless, if the powers of the appellate Court are to be exercised with respect to matters which arise out of enhancement of sentence or acquittal then by virtue of Sections 377 and 378, Criminal P. C. it would be the High Court alone which would be empowered to exercise this jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of holding in Nadir Khan v. State (Delhi Administration), 1976 Cri LJ 1721, that: - "the fact that the new Code of Criminal Procedure has expressly given a right to the State under Section 377, Criminal P. C. to appeal against inadequacy of sentence which was not there under the old Code, does not exclude the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to act suo motu for enhancement of sentence in appropriate cases. What is an appropriate case has to be left to the discretion of the High Court. . . . . . . . " 12. In view of above discussion and the facts narrated above and considering the fact that the incident had taken place on 13-6-1982 and the revision is pending since 1989, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case after 17 years from the date of incident when the parties are living peacefully in the same village and no untoward incident has taken place between them. 13. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The order dated 24-12-1988 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1988 is hereby set aside. .