Law of Criminal Revisions: Scope, Powers, and Judicial Trends
The law of criminal revisions is a significant area of criminal procedural law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Sections 397 to 401 CrPC outline the revisional jurisdiction of superior courts like the Sessions Court and the High Court.
Unlike appeals, a revision is not a right but a discretionary power exercised by higher courts to ensure that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and follow the law.
The revisional powers are intended to correct patent errors, jurisdictional defects, or gross injustice that might occur during criminal proceedings.
This article aims to provide a detailed analysis of criminal revisions, their object, scope, limitations, and important judicial interpretations.
1. Object of Revisional Jurisdiction (Section 397 CrPC)
The primary object of revisional jurisdiction is to set right patent defects or errors of jurisdiction or law. Courts have consistently held that revisional powers cannot be exercised as a substitute for an appeal.
They are invoked only where there is gross illegality, perversity in findings, or arbitrary exercise of discretion.
In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (paras 12 & 13), the Supreme Court observed that revisional jurisdiction is limited and should be exercised sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is not intended to re-appreciate evidence or re-assess findings of fact, except where such findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
2. When Can Revisional Jurisdiction Be Exercised?
Revisional powers under Section 397 CrPC may be invoked in the following situations:
- Gross errors of law or procedure.
- Absence of evidence or misreading of evidence.
- Ignoring material evidence.
- Arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion.
In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Supreme Court emphasized that revisional courts should not interfere with interlocutory orders unless the error is so glaring that it would result in miscarriage of justice.
3. Scope and Limitation of Revisional Powers
The revisional powers are limited and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. Section 397(2) CrPC imposes a bar on revisional powers against interlocutory orders, which means courts cannot revise interim orders like grant of bail, adjournments, etc.
In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, AIR 2017 SC 3620 (Three-Judge Bench), the Supreme Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised against purely interlocutory orders but may be invoked in respect of final or intermediate orders.
4. Revisional Powers vis-à-vis Section 482 CrPC
One important question is whether Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers of High Court) can be used to circumvent the bar under Section 397(2) CrPC. Courts have held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to achieve what is expressly prohibited under Section 397(2) CrPC.
In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, AIR 2017 SC 3620, the Supreme Court observed that Section 482 can be invoked only in the “rarest of rare cases” to prevent miscarriage of justice.
5. Who Can File a Revision?
Revisional powers can be exercised:
- By the accused or complainant (against certain orders).
- Suo motu by the High Court or Sessions Judge.
- By third parties or strangers, in exceptional cases.
In K. Pandurangan v. S.S.R. Velusamy, (2003) 8 SCC 625, the Supreme Court held that even a third party or stranger can invoke revisional jurisdiction to correct an illegal order if it affects public justice.
6. Time Limit for Filing Revision
Under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for filing a revision is 90 days from the date of the impugned order. However, courts have the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if sufficient cause is shown.
In Shilpa v. Madhukar, 2001 (1) JIC 588 (SC), the Supreme Court stressed that a liberal approach must be adopted while condoning delays in criminal revisions, particularly when refusal would perpetuate illegality.
7. Conversion of Revision into Appeal and Vice Versa
Sections 399(2) and 401(4) & 401(5) CrPC empower courts to treat a revision as an appeal and vice versa when justice demands so.
In Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 1978 CrLJ 390 (All.), the Allahabad High Court observed that there is no procedural bar on converting a revision to an appeal to advance the cause of justice.
8. Revision Against Acquittal
Section 401(3) CrPC prohibits the revisional court from converting a finding of acquittal into conviction. However, the court may order a retrial or rehearing of appeal in exceptional cases.
In Sheetala Prasad v. Sri Kant, 2010 (68) ACC 271 (SC), the Supreme Court held that revisional jurisdiction against acquittal should be exercised only in exceptional cases to correct manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.
9. Revision Against Maintenance Orders
Orders under Section 125 CrPC (granting or rejecting maintenance) are revisable. In Smt. Rita Lal v. Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, 2006 (64) ALR 436 (L.B.—D.B.), it was held that a revision can be filed against a Magistrate’s order awarding maintenance.
10. Hearing of Parties in Revision
10.1 Right of Hearing
Section 401(2) CrPC mandates that no order prejudicial to an accused or other person shall be passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard.
In Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Patel, (2012) 10 SCC 517, the Supreme Court held that even at the pre-process stage, if the complainant challenges dismissal of a complaint, the accused/suspect must be heard in revision.
11. No Dismissal of Revision in Default
Once admitted, a criminal revision cannot be dismissed for default of appearance. It must be decided on merits. This principle was reiterated in:
- Santosh v. State of UP, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 307
- Bani Singh v. State of UP, (1996) 4 SCC 720
12. Interference with Interlocutory Orders
Section 397(2) CrPC bars interference with interlocutory orders like issuance of summons, production of documents, etc.
In Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153, it was held that orders summoning documents are interlocutory and thus not revisable.
13. Evidence at Revisional Stage
A revisional court cannot admit new evidence not considered by the trial court. In State v. Siddarth Vashisth alias Manu Sharma, 2001 CrLJ 2404 (Delhi), it was held that allowing new evidence would convert revision into a full-fledged trial.
14. Role of High Court Under Section 401 CrPC
The High Court enjoys wider revisional powers compared to Sessions Courts. However, these powers are not unlimited and must be exercised cautiously.
In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, AIR 1997 SC 987 (Three-Judge Bench), the Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC are meant to ensure that subordinate courts act within the framework of law and prevent miscarriage of justice.
15. Interaction with Section 482 CrPC (Inherent Powers)
While Section 397 CrPC is a specific provision for revision, Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court. However, the inherent power cannot be used to bypass statutory restrictions.
16. Notable Case Laws on Criminal Revision
- Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 – Limits of revisional jurisdiction.
- Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, AIR 1997 SC 987 – Supervisory role of High Courts.
- Manharibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Patel, (2012) 10 SCC 517 – Right of accused to be heard.
- Sheetala Prasad v. Sri Kant, 2010 (68) ACC 271 (SC) – Revision against acquittal.
- Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153 – Interlocutory orders and revision.
- Shilpa v. Madhukar, 2001 (1) JIC 588 (SC) – Liberal approach in condonation of delay.
17. Key Differences Between Revision and Appeal
- Appeal is a statutory right; revision is discretionary.
- Appeal involves re-hearing on facts and law, whereas revision is limited to legality, propriety, or correctness of the order.
- Revisional court cannot convert acquittal into conviction, unlike appellate courts.
Conclusion
The law of criminal revisions acts as a safeguard against procedural errors and illegality. While it is not meant to replace an appeal, it provides an important supervisory mechanism to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Courts have consistently cautioned against overuse of revisional powers, highlighting their limited and exceptional nature.
The judgments discussed above show that revisional jurisdiction is guided by principles of fairness, natural justice, and public interest.
It plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system by correcting grave errors and ensuring that subordinate courts adhere to the rule of law.