Judgment : 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. The present revision has been filed questioning the legality and sustainability of the Judgment of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, acquitting all the three persons accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 I.P.C. in Sessions Case No.276 of 2012 on the file of the said Court. The victim on whom the said offences were allegedly committed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein (A-1 to A-3) who figured as P.W.1 before the Sessions Court, has chosen to prefer the revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. According to the prosecution case, due to previous enmity, the accused persons waylaid the revision petitioner and his brother Kumar on 09.09.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., when they were proceeding towards Puthukottai Police Station in Thoothukudi District to attend an enquiry in connection with a petition given by the said Kumar, the respondents 1 to 3/accused persons attacked the revision petitioner with iron pipes with the intention of causing the death of the revision petitioner. It was also averred in the complaint statement given by the revision petitioner while he was taking treatment in the City Hospital, Thoothukudi, which was formed the basis of the First Information Report, that he was attacked by the respondents 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 in an attempt to cause his death, besides abusing him with filthy language. 4. After the case was committed for trial by the Committal Magistrate, a trial was conducted before the trial Court namely, the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. At the end of the trial, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, on an appreciation of evidence, pronounced a Judgment holding that none of the charges levelled against the accused persons stood proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi held the accused persons not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 I.P.C. for which they were prosecuted and acquitted them vide Judgment dated 27.08.2013. As against the said Judgment of acquittal, the State has not chosen to prefer any appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As against the said Judgment of acquittal, the State has not chosen to prefer any appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Perhaps the State was of the view that the Judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial Court could not be successfully assailed and the same was the reason why the State has not chosen to prefer an appeal. However, the revision petitioner, being the injured/victim, who deposed as P.W.1 before the trial Court in the Sessions Case, has chosen to challenge the Judgment of acquittal by preferring a revision invoking the revisional powers of this Court under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. 5. Of course, prior to 31.12.2009, there was no provision enabling the victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. However, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009), a right of appeal was conferred on the victim in cases instituted on police complaint to prefer an appeal not only against an order of acquittal, but also against the conviction for a lesser offence and inadequacy of sentence. Such a provision was inserted as a proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The said amendment came into effect on 31.12.2009. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a sub-clause namely, sub-clause(4), which says that where an appeal shall lie and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. As a right of appeal has been conferred on the revision petitioner, the victim, who suffered injuries in the alleged occurrence, the bar provided under Sub-section 4 of Section 401 Cr.P.C. will be attracted to the revision filed by the petitioner herein. However, Sub-section 5 of Section 401 gives a discretion to the High Court to convert such a revision into an appeal provided it is satisfied that the revision was filed on an erroneous belief that no appeal would lie and that it shall be in the interest of justice to do so, namely to treat the revision as an appeal. In this case, it cannot be said that the revision came to be filed on an erroneous belief that no appeal shall lie. In this case, it cannot be said that the revision came to be filed on an erroneous belief that no appeal shall lie. Further after having preferred the revision, the petitioner has chosen to leave the case without any representation and the counsel engaged by the petitioner has also kept himself away from the Court, whenever the case happened to be listed before this Court. Furthermore, no circumstance warranting an inference that it shall be necessary in the interest of justice to treat the revision as an appeal, is proved to exist. 6. For the above said reasons, this Court comes to a conclusion that the revision is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.