Revisions In Criminal Procedure
1. Meaning of Revision
Revision is a supervisory jurisdiction exercised by a higher court (usually a High Court or Sessions Court) over the decisions of subordinate criminal courts. It is not an appeal but a limited review of the lower courtโs proceedings to correct any jurisdictional or legal errors.
2. Purpose of Revision
To ensure the lower courts act within their jurisdiction.
To correct gross errors of law or fact.
To prevent miscarriage of justice.
To keep the subordinate courts within limits of law.
To uphold the proper administration of justice.
3. Legal Provisions (Example from Indian Criminal Procedure)
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: empowers Sessions Courts or High Courts to call for the records of any case tried before any inferior court and to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order.
Section 399 CrPC: bars revision after appeal has been preferred.
The revisionary jurisdiction is discretionary, not a matter of right.
4. Distinction Between Revision and Appeal
| Aspect | Revision | Appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Supervisory jurisdiction | Substantive re-examination of case |
| Scope | Limited to legality, jurisdictional errors | Review of facts and law |
| Right | Discretionary | Usually statutory right |
| Court | Higher court (Sessions or High Court) | Appellate court |
| Effect | Correct errors without rehearing evidence | Rehearing or re-examination of evidence |
๐งโโ๏ธ Important Case Laws on Revision in Criminal Procedure
๐น 1. Shiv Charan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 549
๐ Facts:
The High Court exercised revisionary jurisdiction over a conviction passed by the trial court.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
What is the scope of the High Courtโs revisionary powers?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
Revisionary power is extraordinary and supervisory, not an appeal.
It should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
The High Court can interfere only when there is a material illegality, jurisdictional error, or grave injustice.
๐ Importance:
Sets the tone for the discretionary and limited nature of revision.
๐น 2. State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, AIR 1959 SC 225
๐ Facts:
The trial court convicted the accused, and revision was filed challenging the legality of the order.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Can the High Court entertain revision if the accused has an appeal remedy?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court clarified that revision cannot be used to substitute an appeal.
Where an appeal is provided, the revisional court will generally refuse to interfere.
Exception exists if the court finds gross illegality or failure of justice.
๐ Importance:
Reaffirms the principle that revision is not a substitute for appeal.
๐น 3. R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2011) 9 SCC 695
๐ Facts:
Revision petition was filed challenging the trial court's order for maintaining charge.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Is it proper to exercise revision to quash the charge?
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that revision can be used to quash an order which is illegal or without jurisdiction.
It is within the scope of revision to examine whether the trial court has jurisdiction to try the case.
However, if an appeal lies, revision is generally not entertained.
๐ Importance:
Clarifies that revision is available to check jurisdictional errors.
๐น 4. K. Satyanarayana v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1966 SC 1549
๐ Facts:
A revision was filed against an order granting bail by the lower court.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Whether bail orders can be challenged through revision?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court said orders granting or refusing bail are generally not revisable.
But if such an order is illegal or passed without jurisdiction, revision is maintainable.
Bail orders are usually appealable or can be challenged by review.
๐ Importance:
Defines the scope of revision concerning interim orders like bail.
๐น 5. S.V. Krishna Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 SC 2237
๐ Facts:
Revision petition against conviction and sentence.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Can revision be entertained against final judgment?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Supreme Court observed that revision is not maintainable against a final judgment if there is a right of appeal.
However, the High Court can use revision when there is no appeal or the appeal is barred.
๐ Importance:
Confirms that revision is not a substitute for appeal in final orders.
๐น 6. Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1512
๐ Facts:
Revision was filed challenging the trial courtโs refusal to discharge the accused.
โ๏ธ Legal Issue:
Is refusal to discharge revisable?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court held that the High Court can exercise revision against an order refusing discharge if the court lacked jurisdiction or there was an error of law.
Revision cannot be used to question the findings of fact at this stage.
๐ Importance:
Revision can be a remedy to challenge jurisdictional errors or illegal orders in preliminary matters.
๐ Summary of Principles Governing Revision
Revision is discretionary and exercised sparingly.
It checks jurisdictional errors, illegality, or miscarriage of justice.
It is not a substitute for appeal.
Generally not entertained against final judgments where appeal lies.
Can be used to correct gross errors in interlocutory or procedural orders.
Bail orders, discharge orders, and charge framing can sometimes be subject to revision.
RELATED Blog
0 comments