As per case facts, the High Court, while hearing an appeal against the conviction of some individuals, formed a preliminary opinion that the acquittal of other co-accused by the Sessions ... Judge was unwarranted and needed reconsideration. Consequently, the High Court directed the Advocate General to file an application for leave to appeal against these acquittals, even though the State Government had not pursued such an appeal and the limitation period for doing so might have elapsed. The question arose whether the High Court, in its criminal appellate jurisdiction, can issue a directive to the State Government to appeal against acquittals, thereby exceeding its statutory authority and acting as an advisory body, especially when two reasonable views on evidence are possible. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's directive was an excessive use of jurisdiction, akin to advisory jurisdiction it does not possess, and entirely without legal basis. The Court reiterated that an acquittal should only be overturned if the trial court's findings are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable, and not simply because the High Court might hold a different view. Therefore, the High Court's order was quashed, and it was directed to proceed with the pending appeal strictly within its legal bounds.