ORDER : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The present application is by the original complainant who had filed the complaint before the learned 2 nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the accused was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and was also ordered to pay the cheque amount as compensation. 2. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused move the appellate Court. The learned 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal No.311 of 2024 acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the original complainant has move this Court by filing the revision application. 3. Here, the matter which requires consideration is the provision under Section 378 of the Cr.PC, which is corresponding Section 419 under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 419 refers to appeal in case of acquittal. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to section 378 Cr.P.C. and section 478(4) Cr.P.C., in case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Karnataka And Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752 , in paragraph nos.84 and 90 held as under: “84. Chapter XXIX with of the CrPC deals with appeals. Appeals against acquittal are governed by Section 378 of CrPC. As per sub-section (1) of this section only a District Magistrate or the State as may be is entitled to case the direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal. Sub-section (2) deals with cases investigated under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and in these cases the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal. I am concerned mainly with sub-section (3) of Section 378 of CrPC, which provides that no appeal to the High Court either under sub- section (1) a case or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Sub-section (4) deals with appeals filed by the complainant in case the order of acquittal is passed in instituted upon a complaint. In such cases if the appeal has to be filed in the High Court it cannot entertained unless the High Court grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. Sub-section (5) provides the limitation filing the petition for grant of special leave to appeal in terms of sub- section (4). In such cases if the appeal has to be filed in the High Court it cannot entertained unless the High Court grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. Sub-section (5) provides the limitation filing the petition for grant of special leave to appeal in terms of sub- section (4). Sub-section be for (6) lays down that in case the application for special leave to appeal filed by a complainant under sub- section (4) is refused then no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub- section (1) or under sub-section (2). An analysis of Section 378 of CrPC clearly shows that the CrPC envisaged and granted a predominant role to the State. It was the State alone which was entitled to file an appeal. The only exception was in complaint cases where the complainant could file an appeal. He also had to seek special leave to appeal in case the appeal lay to the High Court." 90. Adverting to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of CrPC, if an order of acquittal is passed on a case instituted upon a complaint then the High Court before entertaining an appeal by the complainant must grant special leave to appeal. The expression "Special leave to appeal" has no different meaning than the expression "leave to appeal" and it appears to me that the word "special" has been added only to distinguish "leave to appeal" sought by the complainant from the "leave to appeal" sought by the State. Thus, in a complaint case where the complainant has set the wheels of the Court in motion even if complainant files the appeal he must obtain special leave to appeal...." 5. In the judgment of Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy reported in AIR 2022 SC 670 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.10.1 held as under: “It cannot be disputed that now after the amendment in Section 372 Cr.P.C. after 2009 and insertion of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., a victim has appeal a statutory right of against the order of acquittal. Therefore, no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal. Therefore, no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal. Even the same would be in the interest of the victim himself/herself as while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub- section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court." 6. Chapter II of Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 deals with the power of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. Rule 10 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, is reproduced hereinunder: "10. Conversion of a matter of one kind into another may be ordered by Registrar - Applications or notes revision for conversion of a application into an appeal or vice-versa or an appeal of one kind to another may be disposed of by the Registrar." 7. In reference to judgment of Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (supra) and Rule 10 of Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, the administrative conversion of the matter is to be done by the Registrar. 8. The appeal in case of an acquittal is of provided under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section (4) section 378 is provided in case, when the order of acquittal passed in any case instituted upon the complaint, and the High Court on an application made to it by the complainant on this behalf would grant special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, and that the complainant may present an appeal to the High Court. Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: “378(4): If such an order of case "378(4): acquittal is passed in any instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court." 9. The present application has been filed in the revision jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the provision of section 401(4) of Cr.P.C., where under an appeal lies, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the parties, who could have appealed. Under sub-section (5) of section 401 of Cr.P.C., when under the Code an appeal lies, an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief, that no appeal lies thereto, and it is necessary in the interest of justice so to do so the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. 10. Here, in this case, the complainant proposes to challenge the acquittal order, which was passed in appellate jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, and the complainant under section 138 of N.I. Act, would not be termed as a victim, and therefore would have to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal, as provided under sub-section (4) of section 378 of Cr.P.C., where he would have to take a special leave to appeal before this High Court. This fact becomes clear from the observation made in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (supra) in paragraph no.10.2, which reads as under: “As observed by this Court in the case of Mallikarjun (supra), so far as Kodagali the victim is concerned, the victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has a under statutory right of appeal Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like sub- section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal passed in any case instituted upon complaint. The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. Therefore, so far as issue no.2 is concerned, namely, in a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. Issue no.2 is therefore answered accordingly." 11. Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (supra), thus, expresses the power of High Court under sub-section(5) of section 401 of Cr.P.C., therefore, accordingly, having observed the fact that the appeal would be maintainable under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., and, thus invoking the power to be exercised under sub-section (5) of section 401 of Cr.P.C., this Court, thus, considers to pass order under section 401(5) Cr.P.C. for necessary process to be initiated for seeking leave to appeal, as provided under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 12. As could be seen from the provision of section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., an appeal against the order of acquittal could be maintained subject to grant of special leave. As such application for special leave is to be filed in an appeal, it is for the applicant to take appropriate steps after conversion is granted. 13. In view of the referred circumstances, learned Advocate Mr. Milind Pravasi has sought permission to get the conversion of the revision into an appeal. It is ordered that the present revision petition to be treated as an appeal. 14. The petitioner and the Registry to take appropriate steps for the conversion. 15. List the matter before the concerned Court after the steps are taken.