RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIMINAL REVISION MATTER

1) What is the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the court?

 New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey (Criminal Appeal No.1852
Of 2019) (Supreme Court)

The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section
397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional
Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As
reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisional power is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.

 Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Ors. (13.09.2012 - SC): (2012) 9 SCC 460

“12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the
correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as
the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397
is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the
very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires
justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-
compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily.”

2) What is the difference between Appeal and Revision?

S.NO. APPEAL REVISION

1. An appeal is as a right. The revision is not a right but as only a
procedural facility afforded to a party.
2. In appeals, the courts have the power to In revision, the influence of intervention
interfere in any way. is limited.
3. An appeal is continuation of the court Revision is whether the legal actions
proceeding on a certain case. were followed in the proceedings.
4. An appeal examines law basics and facts. Revision entails examination of legal
actions, jurisdiction and procedure
followed to arrive at a decision.

It is only when there is a glaring defect

in the procedure or manifest error on
the point of law resulting a flagrant
 miscarriage of justice that the revisional
jurisdiction may be invoked. However,
it is not possible to lay down the criteria
for determining such exceptional case.
(i) An acquittal by the Court lacking
jurisdiction or (ii) excluding evidence
which is admissible or (iii) reliance on
inadmissible evidence or (iv)
overlooking material evidence are
some of the criteria.1

In the absence of a miscarriage of

justice, a mere defect or error in law or
fact will not warrant interference in
revision, however glaring that defect or
error might be.2
5. In appeal, the High Court can convert an In revision it cannot convert a finding of
acquittal into a conviction and vice versa. acquittal into one of conviction.
6. In disposing of a criminal appeal against In revision the High Court will not
conviction, the Court will interfere, unless it interfere unless the conscience of the
is satisfied as to the guilt of the accused. Court is aroused to such an extent as to
compel it to expressly say that the
applicant ought not to have been
convicted on the evidence.
7. The High Court cannot dismiss an appeal In revision the High Court is not bound
without affording the appellant or his to hear the applicant or his pleader save
pleader a reasonable opportunity of being while enhancing any sentence, in which
heard. case the accused shall be heard as of
right
8. Section 394 Cr.P.C. allows abatement in case There is no provision for abatement of a
of appeal. revision proceeding as for appeal

Judicial Precedents:

 Hari Shankar vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 (Supreme Court)

“The distinction between an appeal and revision is a real one. A right to appeal carries with it
right of re-hearing on law as well as fact, unless the statute conferring the right to appeal limits
the re-hearing in some way as we find has been done in second appeal arising under the Code

1
Amarchandra Agarwala v Shanti Bose, AIR 1973 SC 799
2
Chaganti Kotaiah v Gogineni Venkateswara Rao, AIR 1973 SC 1274
of Civil Procedure. The power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior court so that
it may satisfy, itself that a particular case has been decided according to law.”

 State of Kerala vs. K.M. Charia Abdulla & Co., 1965 (1) SCR 601 (Supreme Court)

“There is an essential distinction between an appeal and a revision. The distinction is based on
the differences implicit in the said two expressions. An appeal is a continuation of the
proceedings; in effect the entire proceedings are before the appellate authority and it has power
to review the evidence subject to the statutory limitations prescribed. But in the case of a
revision, whatever powers the revisional authority may or may not have, it has not the power
to review the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is
implicit in the concept of revision.”
This view is also relied upon in Lachhman Dass vs Santokh Singh, 1995 SCC (4) 201 (Supreme
Court).

 Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1

(Supreme Court)

This Court has observed that the right of appeal is one of entering a superior court and invoking
its aid and interposition to refer the error of the court below.
In this case when the High Court considered that its only concern was to check whether the
order of the magistrate "is fraught with any illegality or impropriety", the High Court has
narrowed down its angle while dealing with an appeal.

When a trial court had acquitted an accused due to non- appearance of the complainant the
appellate court has the same powers as the trial court to reach a dress decision as to whether on
the particular situation the magistrate should have acquitted the accused. What the trial court
did not then ascertain and consider could, perhaps, be known to the appellate court and a
decision different from the trial court can be taken by the appellate court, whether the order of
acquittal should have been passed in the particular situation.

 Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand, AIR 1998 SC 596 (Supreme Court)

“It is trite legal position that appellate jurisdiction is coextensive with original court's
jurisdiction as for appraisal and appreciation of evidence and reaching findings on facts and
appellate court is free to reach its own conclusion on evidence untrammeled by any finding
entered by the trial court. Revisional powers on the other hand belong to supervisory
jurisdiction of a superior court. While exercising revisional powers the court has to confine to
the legality and propriety of the findings and also whether the subordinate court has kept itself
within the bounds of its jurisdiction vested in it.”
  Jaswinder Kaur And Ors. vs Jatinder Pal Singh, 1994 IVAD Delhi 528 (Delhi High
Court)

“An appeal and a revision are different concepts and have been enacted for different purposes.
Their goals are different and they serve different purpose's and operate in different spheres.
'Appeal' and 'Revision' are both creations of a Statute. Appeal is a genus and revision is a
species thereof. An appeal covers a wider field. A party can approach a superior Court by way
of an appeal on a point of law as well as on facts. Once an appeal is dismissed, party has got
right to prefer a second appeal. However, this is not the case with the revision. The scope of
revision is narrower in comparison to an appeal. A party can prefer a revision petition only on
the question of law.”

3) What is the procedure of impleadment of parties in criminal proceedings?

The principles of necessary, proper and improper parties are followed in the criminal
proceedings as well. It is a settled position of law that no adverse order can be passed against an
accused without hearing the accused and no person shall be made a party to the proceeding
against whom no relief or no cause of action arise.

The procedure for impleadment of parties is not defined in the CrPC. An application for
impleading the parties is moved to the Court and on the Court’s order the impleadment is done.

 In the case Mayaben Arjunsinh Vasadia vs Arjunsinh Dhirajsinh Vasadia and Ors.,
(18.06.1996), High Court of Gujarat,

In the instant case, the Respondent No.1 filed an appeal against her conviction and did not join
the petitioner as one of the parties and merely proceeded against the State. The petitioner,
therefore, by her application sought to be joined as one of the parties in the said appeal but the
application was rejected.

It was contended by the Petitioner that the impugned orders disallowing the petitioner to be
joined as party in the appeal proceedings are unwarranted and illegal, inasmuch as the
petitioner is likely to be adversely affected by the orders passed in the said appeal proceedings.
It was observed,

“16. Unlike provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there is no clear and express
provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of allowing any party to be added
in the proceedings before the Court. Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
contemplates that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that
the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and
that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant,
or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
However, there is no such provision empowering the Court to add any person as party in the
criminal proceedings, in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

17. The term "party" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. When it is used with
reference to a proceeding in a Court, its primary meaning is a litigant. It would, therefore, mean
a person who has a part to play in the proceeding. In the absence of anything to the contrary in
the context, the primary meaning of the word "party" should be adopted as the person who is
interested in the proceedings or that he is likely to be affected one way or the other in the final
outcome of the proceedings….

18. …it is the petitioner would be caused prejudice and she will also suffer loss if she is not
made party to the appeal proceedings. Simply because there is no explicit provision in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the request of the petitioner, in my opinion, should not have
been turned down for being impleaded as party, particularly when the actions for the offence
under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code were in fact initiated at the instance of the
petitioner. It is the petitioner who pointed out to the Court at first instance as to how and in
what manner the respondent No. 1 has deliberately deposed falsely and tried to mislead the
Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it would be just and proper and
in the ends of justice that the petitioner be allowed to be joined as party in both the appeals.
The respondents No. 1 and 3 who are original appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1995
and 21 of 1995, are not likely to be caused any prejudice if the petitioner is allowed to be
represented in the appeals.”

4) What are the rights of the accused u/s 397 of the Criminal Revision?

 Jagannath Verma vs. State of UP, AIR 2014 All 214

“In proceedings in Revision under Section 397, the prospective Accused or, as the case may be,
the person, who is suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of
being heard before a decision is taken in the Criminal Revision”

5) What are the powers of the session judge under criminal revisional jurisdiction?

 S. Balasubramaninan and Ors. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (MADHC):
MANU/TN/0929/2012
55. … under Sub section (1) of 399 a Sessions Judge, while dealing with a revision, can
exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High court under sub section
(1) of section 401.

62. The object of the revisional jurisdiction, unlike appellate jurisdiction, is to confer a sort
of supervisory power. The purpose is to rectify miscarriage of justice, Irregularity of
procedure, Neglect of proper precaution or Apparent harsh treatment. This revisional
jurisdiction should not be lightly exercised, as it cannot be invoked as a right. Revision is not
a right but is only a procedural facility given to a party whereas appeal is the continuation of
the proceeding. While considering the legality, propriety or the correctness of a finding or a
conclusion, the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and the evidence of the
case. The Court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the correctness,
legality and propriety of the findings, sentence or order and refrains from substituting its own
conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.

65. In sub-section (1) of S. 399 it is stated that "the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of
the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of S. 401"
therefore, the Sessions Judge can exercise such of those powers which can be exercised by
the High Court itself in exercise of its revisional powers”

A combined reading of sections 399 and 401 would, therefore, show that a Sessions Judge, in
revision, exercises the following powers and makes appropriate orders:
 Set aside a conviction, acquittal or sentence [section 386]
 But, after setting aside acquittal, it cannot pass a judgment of conviction [section 401(3)];
it can only order a retrial.
 Enhance the sentence after giving opportunity to the accused to be heard.
 Suspend the sentence and release the Petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the revision
proceeding [section 389].
 Direct arrest of the accused pending revision [section 390].
 Take or direct taking of further evidence for disposing of the revision [section 391].
 Direct tender of pardon to the accused [section 307].
 Direct sentences to run concurrently, under section 427.
 Release the accused on probation, under section 360.

6) Whether appreciation of evidence can be done by the revisional court?

 Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (06.11.2001 - SC): AIR 2002 SC 107
“The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine
and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to
appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do.”

7) Whether additional evidence can be adduced in Revision proceedings?

As per Pradeep Kumar vs. State and Ors. (24.08.2018 - DELHC): MANU/DE/3100/2018

“There should not have been any doubt as to the power and jurisdiction of the revisional
court to consider if the matter required further evidence to be called for or permitted. But the
crucial question remains as to whether the petitioner had made out a case for, he to be
allowed to adduce further or additional evidence at the stage of revisional court's scrutiny.
Such opportunity under Section 391 Cr.P.C., in the considered view of this court, cannot be
available just for the asking or, not the least, to fill in lacuna or deficiency. The party asking for
such opportunity for further evidence to be adduced must not only plead but also show to the
satisfaction of the concerned court, particularly in a situation like the one at hand as to why it
could not or did not adduce such evidence when opportunity was available earlier.”

8) Whether Order u/s 156(3) is appealable?

The order u/s 156(3) CrPC is not appealable and the only remedy available is under the
revisional jurisdiction u/s 397.

In the case of Atul Pandey vs State UP (MANU/UP/0015/2021), Allahabad High Court,

An application u/s 482 was filed by the Applicant aggrieved by the order of the Judicial
Magistrate declining to pass an order to register FIR.

The present application was dismissed by the Hon’ble HC on the grounds that an alternative
remedy of filing a revision u/s 397 CrPC is available to the Applicant.