The accused was charged in Primary Court with stealing and was acquitted. The District Court magistrate then exercised his revisional jurisdiction and ordered that the police reinvestigate the case and file new charges if appropriate. The District Court did not cite any error in the lower court judgment but acted on the ground that the case was a “serious one and wanted careful investigation”. As a result the accused was convicted in a second proceeding of stealing by servant.
Held: (1) An appellate court may revise an order or decision only if the order or decision of the lower court is incorrect, illegal or improper or if the proceedings are irregular. He may not do so merely because he disagrees with the result. In the present case there was no error in the lower court judgment and the revisional order was improper.
Because the revisional order in the first proceeding was improper, the second proceeding as a nullity. Conviction quashed.
