IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2008 SIDDHI PAI ... Petitioner Versus SANJAY PAI AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 22nd September, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant is the first informant in a case which has ended in acquittal under Section 498A and 506(ii) I.P.C. by Judgment dated 23-1-2008 of the learned J.M.F.C. The present revision is filed by him with prayers for remand of the case for a de novo trial. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant has referred to Section 401 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that the powers of this Court are wider than that of the Sessions Court. However, a perusal of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Sections 399 and 401 shows that the jurisdiction is concurrent and powers as wide with a further prohibition for both the Courts in sub-section(3) of Section 401 that an order of acquittal cannot be converted into an order of conviction which also can be read in sub-section(2) of Section 399. In other words, the Legislature has placed a prohibition on both the Courts for not converting an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The powers conferred by the Code on both the Courts being as wide and the jurisdiction to exercise them being concurrent, it is the option of this Court whether to entertain this revision or not. In Dr. Mohan N. Bhave(unreported decision dated 6-4-2005 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.52/2005) this Court following the decision of Jeeetendra R. Deshprabhu(unreported decision dated 23-12-2004 in Criminal Revision Application No.28/2004), and after considering several decisions of this Court, has held that it is unwritten law settled by practice and prudence that a party should ordinarily approach the Court of Sessions first in revisional jurisdiction and it will be choice of the superior Court whether a revision should be entertained by it or not by allowing a party to by pass the inferior Court. In V. K. Jain and others(2005(3) Mh.L.J. 778) this Court has held that as the accused person has an efficacious remedy of preferring revision before the Sessions Court, such writ petitions ought not to be entertained and the aggrieved persons ought to be given liberty to prefer revision before the Sessions Court. The petition shall therefore be returned to the Applicant within a period of four weeks and who shall present it to the Court of Sessions within further period of two weeks and if presented the same shall be disposed of as a revision by the learned Sessions Judge, in accordance with law. Authenticated copy of the order be given to the learned Counsel. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.