JUDGMENT : Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is the original First Informant. On the basis of a complaint lodged by him before the Magistrate, investigation as contemplated under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') was ordered, and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent nos. I and 2 herein. The police report alleged that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had committed offences punishable under sections 324 IPC, 323 IPC, 504 IPC, 506 II of the IPC and 389 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate, after holding a trial, by an order dated 10th August 2009, acquitted the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions in revision, challenging the order of acquittal as passed by the Magistrate. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who heard the Revision Application, upheld the acquittal of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 with respect to all the alleged offences, except the one punishable under section 323 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the respondent nos. 1 and 2 of an offence punishable under section 323 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - in default to suffer SI for five days. The petitioner is still aggrieved, as according to him, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 should have been convicted of the other offences also. He has, therefore, filed the present petition, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The prayer of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Court of Sessions in revision, be quashed, and that either the matter be remanded back to the trial court for re-framing the charges in respect of the alleged offences, or in the alternative, the respondent nos.1 and 2 be convicted of the other offences also, and be appropriately sentenced. 4. It is c1ear that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted after holding a trial. The acquittal was not challenged by way of any Appeal, but by filing the Revision Application before the Court of Sessions. In the revision, the Addl. Sessions Judge converted the finding of acquittal, as recorded by the Magistrate, into one of conviction. 4. It is c1ear that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted after holding a trial. The acquittal was not challenged by way of any Appeal, but by filing the Revision Application before the Court of Sessions. In the revision, the Addl. Sessions Judge converted the finding of acquittal, as recorded by the Magistrate, into one of conviction. In my opinion, this could have been done by the Addl. Sessions Judge in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 401 of the Code. Since in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into conviction, the order passed by the Court of Sessions in revision, is patently illegal, atleast to that extent. Even though the acquittal in respect of the other charges has not been disturbed. the acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC. has been converted into conviction, and therefore, this amounts to a violation of the express provisions of sub-section (3) of section 401 read with sub-section (2) of section 399 and section 400 of the Code. 5. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set aside not on the grounds alleged by the petitioner, but for the aforesaid reasons. 6. The only question is what ought to be the proper order, in the circumstances. In my opinion, since the Court of Sessions has come to a conclusion that there was evidence against the respondent nos: 1 and 2 with respect to the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC, it had an option to direct further evidence in the Matter to be taken, or directing a re-trial. 7. The learned APP submitted that considering the fact that the offences were allegedly committed in the year 2002, there would be no point in remanding the matter back to the Court of Sessions for re-hearing the revision application by keeping the prohibition to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in mind. 8. After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it appears proper to me to remand the matter back to the learned Addl. 8. After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it appears proper to me to remand the matter back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for a re-consideration of the revision application only to the limited extent of passing appropriate orders consistent with his conclusion that there was evidence to establish charge of an offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC against the respondent nos. 1 and 2, but keeping in mind the provisions of section 401(3) of the Code read with section 399(2) thereof. Needless to say that the revision application shall be decided afresh, after giving an opportunity to the respondent nos.l and 2 herein of being heard in the matter. The Court of Sessions shall also keep in mind, the propriety of directing fresh evidence to be taken and/or ordering a retrial, when the allegations with respect to the more serious offences had not been proved. 9. Petition is partly allowed. 10. The impugned order to the extent that it converts the acquittal of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, in respect of the offence punishable under section 323 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC into conviction, is set aside. 11. The Court of Sessions shall pass an appropriate order in that regard, after giving to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 12. Petition is disposed of. 13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition partly allowed.