Tilak Raj Vs. Som Nath Cr. Revision No. 402 of 2016 Reserved on: 24.11.2025 17.12.2025 Present: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for the non-applicant/respondent. Cr. MP No. 4716 of 2025 The applicant has filed the present application for converting the criminal revision into a criminal appeal. It has been asserted that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). Learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of ₹60,000/- to the complainant as compensation. The accused filed an appeal, which was allowed, and the learned Appellate Court acquitted the accused. The complainant filed a revision against the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. The revision was wrongly filed, and an appeal against acquittal should have been filed. No prejudice would be caused to the other side by converting the revision into an appeal. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the revision be converted into an appeal. 2. No reply to the application was filed. 3. I have heard Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 4. Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant, submitted that an appeal is maintainable against the judgment acquitting the accused. The complainant filed a revision mistakenly. This Court has jurisdiction to convert the revision into an appeal. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the revision be converted into an appeal. 5. Mr Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the appeal would be barred by limitation today, and it is impermissible to convert the revision into an appeal at this stage. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by this Court in the Secretary Market Committee Vs. Rajinder Singh 2003 (3) Shim.LC 59 that Section 401(5) of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to treat the revision as an appeal when the revision was made under an erroneous belief that no appeal is maintainable. The grant of Special Leave to Appeal is not required in such a situation. It was observed:- 9. It is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid provision of subsection (5) that it vests discretionary power in the High Court to convert a revision petition into a petition of appeal in a case where appeal lies but a revision petition has been preferred on the erroneous belief that appeal does not lie and the High Court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to convert the revision into appeal. It necessarily follows that once the Court is satisfied that revision must be treated as an appeal and it is so ordered, the grant of special leave to appeal is implicit in the order converting the revision petition into an appeal for the simple reason that once the petition has been treated to be a petition of appeal, it becomes an appeal preferred for all intents and purposes. Therefore, the powers under sub- section (5) supra are independent of the provisions of Section 378 of the Code. 8. Therefore, in view of the binding precedent of this Court, the submission that a revision cannot be converted into an appeal without filing an application for seeking leave is not acceptable. 9. Learned Appellate Court had acquitted the accused, and an appeal against acquittal was maintainable under Section 378. The plea that the revision was mistakenly filed under a bona fide belief was not disputed by filing a reply. Therefore, it must be accepted as correct at this stage. 10. It was submitted that the appeal would be barred by limitation as of today, and it is impermissible to convert the revision into an appeal. This submission overlooks the fact that the revision was filed within 48 days and an appeal against the acquittal was not barred by limitation on the date of its filing. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Sebastian, 1982 SCC OnLine Ker 109: 1982 KLT 724: 1983 Cri LJ 416 that if the revision was filed within time, it can be converted into an appeal after the expiry of the limitation. It was observed at page 726: “8. It was submitted on behalf of the State that it was under a bona fide erroneous belief that the order impugned is really one of discharge, that a revision was filed, and therefore, this Court may be pleased to treat this as an appeal. Revisional jurisdiction conferred under S. 401 Crl. P.C. is very wide and cannot therefore be lightly exercised. Powers under this section can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. The whole matter has now been brought to the notice of this Court on the revisional side. Notwithstanding the bar or exceptions contained in S. 401 Crl. P.C., the High Court has jurisdiction suo motu to set aside an illegal order of acquittal in exercise of the revisional powers. It is not disputed that this petition has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, by virtue of the provision in sub-section (5) of S. 401 Crl. P.C., this Court can treat this revision as an appeal. It makes no difference and is of no serious consequence whether this petition is heard as a petition of appeal or revision, as the orders under challenge are manifestly and glaringly illegal and are passed without jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In the present case, an appeal against acquittal would have been within limitation on the date of filing of the revision; therefore, the application for converting the revision into an appeal cannot be dismissed because it is filed after the expiry of the limitation. 12. No other point was urged. 13. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the revision is ordered to be converted into an appeal. 14. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 402 of 2016 The present revision be registered as an appeal, and it be listed for final hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th December, 2025 (Chander)