NAME: ABHISHEK RAJPUROHIT

CLASS: T.Y.LL.B.
DIVISION: C
ROLL NO.: 148
SUBJECT: CrPC
TOPIC: REVISION UNDER CRPC
FACULTY: DR. ANAND KASLE
 INTRODUCTION
Criminal justice has effective impact on every human’s life but it has also led to some serious
consequences on those individual’s life who have been convicted under the criminal law. One
can assure that every organization or institution built by man is susceptible to certain
imperfections and this very well applies to our Courts as well. It should be noted that Courts
are the institutions known for dispensing justice to their people but it doesn’t mean that they
might not make mistakes while doing so. Courts are equally prone to making mistakes,
although they cannot afford to make frequent error as they are bearer of justice and equity.

Thus, there are certain provisions added to Civil Procedure Code 1908 as well as Criminal
Procedure Code 1973 so as to examine the decisions and orders passed by the lower courts,
High Court to preclude and avoid any scope for miscarriage of Justice. As this aspect of
judiciary was realized, provision of appeal, revision, review and reference were included in
Criminal Procedure Code, so that the aggrieved party could approach the higher court for
appeal or revision against their existing order or judgment from the lower court. These
aspects are elaborately discussed under CrPC.

As stated above, when the party is not satisfied with their judgment, the Court gives them the
right to appeal in higher courts on certain grounds. But in certain cases, right to appeal is not
given to the parties and instead the judgment can be either reviewed or revised by higher
courts or some other delegated courts. The legislators kept this in mind while they brought in
the concept of review procedure called Revision in the legislation so as to avoid the Judiciary
from being completely tyrannical and preclude it from committing any miscarriage of justice
especially for those cases where right to appeal has been barred by the Court and CrPC.
Section 397 to 405 deals with the powers of Revision as granted to the Higher courts and the
method or procedure to exercise these powers appropriately. It should be noted that these
powers are wide-spread and discretionary by their nature.

Well, the term “revision” has not been defined under the CrPC 1973 but as per Section 397, it
states that High Court or any Sessions Judge has been granted the power to call for or study
the records for any proceeding in order to satisfy the following conditions-

• To check the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order

whether recorded or passed
• To examine the regularity of any proceedings of an inferior court

The High Court or Sessions Judge may also have the power to direct the execution of any
sentence or any order in particular manner as is justified. These are not the only powers, but
they may also exercise the power to direct the release of the accused on bail or on his own
bond, if the accused is kept in confinement. Further, they might also order for an inquiry on
subject to certain limitations and the main purpose behind granting of these powers to the
appellant courts is to prevent any failure of justice at the hands of Court or judges.

GROUNDS FOR REVISION

There are certain grounds under which Revision can be filed in superior court by the
aggrieved party for any judgment passed by the subordinate or lower courts especially in
those cases where there is no appeal permitted by the subordinate courts. Revision is
discretionary and supervisory power of the superior court but it doesn’t assure any statutory
right to the aggrieved party unlike appeal provisions. The grounds for filing revision under
civil and criminal case are different. They are-

● Civil Revision
Section 115 of the CPC 1908 describes Revision in civil matters and prior to this provision,
there was a term “case decided” in CPC used to refer the case for revision and post the
Amendment Act 1976 in CPC, an explanation was added to Section 115 of the CPC which
gave a description of what all was included in “case decided”. It includes any order issues, or
any order that resolves an issue, and in the course of a lawsuit or any other proceeding. It is to
be noted that only High Court has the power to pass a stay order with respect to any suit or
other proceeding for revision purposes. As per Section 115 of the Code, the conditions for
revision are mentioned below-

1. When subordinate court exercises a jurisdiction, i.e., not vested in it by law

2. When subordinate court fails to exercise its rightful jurisdiction as vested in it
by Law
3. The subordinate court acts illegally or with material irregularity while
exercising its own jurisdiction

● Criminal Revision
Revision is well explained for criminal matters from Section 397 to 405 and under criminal
jurisdiction, revision can be exercised by High Court as well as Sessions Judge. According to
Section 397 of CrPC, revision petition can be filed to check the irregularity or correctness of
any particular finding, order or sentence passed by any lower court, then the Court might call
for such record or finding or the Court may direct the execution of any sentence or order to be
suspended and if the accused is behind the bars then the accused can be released on bond by
the Court while the examination of such bond is pending in the Court. But there are certain
exceptions to this discretionary power of the Court. They are-
 • The power of revision shall not be exercised in case of interlocutory or interim
order passed in appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.
• The High Court or Sessions Judge shall not interest an application for revision
by a person who has previously applied for the same in either of them.

LIMITATIONS
There are certain statutory limitations imposed on the High Court for exercising its revisional
powers as given under Section 401 of the CrPC, but the only requirement which is essential
for exercising this power is to present or furnish the records of the proceedings before the
Court, and after examining the records of the case it relies on the discretion of Court on the
following basis-

• That an accused should be given due opportunity of being heard or an order

cannot be passed unless this procedure is followed
• An application of revision cannot be proceeded further in cases where the party
who applied for revision could have gone for appeal but didn’t do so.

The High Court shall have the power to call for any record of any proceeding of any inferior
criminal court which comes under its jurisdiction in order to establish the correctness, legality
of propriety of any finding, sentence etc and the Sessions Judge would examine the question
with regard to inadequacy of sentence in view of the powers conferred to him under Section
397(1) of CrPC.

The major difference between powers granted to the High Court and Sessions court or
Sessions Judge, is that revisional powers can be exercised only by the Sessions Judge himself
whereas in case of High Court the power to take up a revisional petition lies with the Court or
whenever it is brought to the knowledge of High Court. Apart from that, the powers exercised
by Sessions Judge and High Court while dealing with revisional matters is same. In the case
of S Balasubramanian v. the State of Tamil Nadu, the High Court of Madras ordered that “a
Sessions Judge has the power to entertain an application in revision against the sentence
passed and eventually enhance the sentence in revision in certain matters.”

Even in the case of Alamgir v State of Bihar, the Apex Court has spoken of the same fact,
that in respect of enhancement of sentence in revision, it can be done by the Court only if the
Court was satisfied and believed that sentence imposed by the trial Court is excessively
lenient, or that in passing the order of sentence, the trial court has failed to look into the
relevant facts of the case.”

Limitation Period
As per Section 131 of the Limitation Act, it mentions that criminal revision, if the party
wishes to file, it has to be filed by the aggrieved party within 90 days from the decree or order
passed. Further, section 50 of the Act mentions that the Court can allow criminal revision
application after the expiry of limitation period also if sufficient cause or reason is given for
condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

In the known judgment of Salekh Chand v. Sh. Deepak Sharma, the Sessions court decided
that period of limitation will be from the date of knowledge of the questioned or impugned
order by the revisionist. For example, if the party applying for revision got knowledge of
receipt of summons on 8/11/2013 and filed the petition on 23/1/2014 while the actual date of
impugned order was 5/9/2013, so the petition will be allowed as the order came into
revisionist knowledge later on 8/11/2013.

SUO MOTO POWER

Suo moto power of the Court, means that the Court has been vested the power to act on its
own consensus or decision even if no parties have approached the Court for further revision
of the judgment. The suo moto power is not just exercised by Higher courts but even the
smaller courts can exercise the suo moto revisional power for the upkeep of justice in civil
matters within their jurisdiction. If the matter involves greater public interest then the High
Court shall also take the suo moto jurisdiction of that case for exercising its revisional
powers.

In case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Girdharilal Sapuru, it was rightly held by the
High Court that a revision cannot be dismissed by High Court just on the grounds of technical
limitations and instead the court should exercise Suo moto power of revision in such cases for
avoiding any further illegality or miscarriage in the petition. However, it has to be noted that
criminal matters don’t permit suo moto power to be extended to convert revision petition into
an appeal against the acquittal and then convict the alleged person. But the High Court may
set aside the order of acquittal and the trails can be remitted.

PROCEDURE
The procedure or manner for filing a Revision petition is not that difficult. Even the court has
the power to initiate revisional power via Suo Moto or if an application is filed by the
aggrieved party within the set limitation period. But it has to be known that a Court may
exercise revisional jurisdiction only when the subordinate court has failed to exercise its
rightful jurisdiction or has misused or extended its power of jurisdiction. Once the petition is
examined and allowed at the discretion of the Court (it is probable that the petition might be
rejected also), then the jurisdictional error is corrected and the order is revised and the
reasons for revision are taken into consideration. In case of civil proceedings for revision, the
case doesn’t get reduced by the death of the applicant and the order is eventually transferred
in the name of legal representative of the applicant.

CASE LAW
Amit Kapoor VS. Ramesh Chander and Another ( 13 September 2012)

On 4th December, 2007, the Rajouri Garden Police Station received information that a
woman had committed suicide at C-224, Tagore Garden Extension, Delhi. Upon making
entry under DD No.16A of that date, Sub Inspector O.P. Mandal commenced investigation
and reached the place of occurrence. The deceased was identified as Komal Kapoor. Her
body was sent for post mortem. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of her son
Amit Kapoor and on 5.12.2007 at about 12.15 p.m. an FIR was registered on the complaint
filed by him. This FIR was registered against Ramesh Chander Sibbal (the accused) and
another, on the basis of the statement of Amit Kapoor and the suicide note. According to
Amit Kapoor, he knew Ramesh Chander Sibbal for the last 10 years. Father of Amit Kapoor
was running a paint brush business and had purchased property No.C-225, Tagore Garden,
Delhi through the said Ramesh Chander Sibbal. Since the father of Amit Kapoor had fallen
ill, his mother was also looking after the business. However, the family business suffered
acute losses. The family discussed the possibility of selling their moveable and immoveable
property situated at Rohini. The accused persons are stated to have fraudulently obtained
signatures of the deceased in this connection. In order to get over the financial crises and to
meet their liabilities, the deceased had also discussed the possibility of selling another plot
owned by the family situated in Bawana Industrial Area. At that time also, the accused told
the deceased that certain documents have to be executed before the plot is sold. On this
pretext, he again got some papers signed by them. The accused paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to
the deceased at the first instance and thereafter a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the plot situated in
Bawana as against the market value of Rs.28,00,000/-, with an assurance that the rest of the
amount will be paid after execution of the sale deed.

The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, effected recoveries of the articles from the
place of occurrence and thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses. Upon completion
of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code wherein
Ramesh Chander Sibbal was stated as the accused and names of his wife, Suman Sibbal and
son Gaurav Sibbal were shown in Column No.2. Upon committal, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused under Section 306 and 448 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
The accused filed a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.227 of 2009 in the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi challenging the order of the trial Court dated 2nd April, 2009,
framing the charge. The High Court vide its judgment dated 13th August, 2009 quashed the
charge framed under Section 306 IPC, while permitting the Trial Court to continue the trial in
relation to the offence under Section 448 IPC. It will be useful to refer to certain findings
recorded by the High Court in its judgment dated 13th August, 2009 : I am of the opinion
that it is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its revisional and inherent powers to
quash the charge framed against the petitioner accused under Section 306 of the IPC. The
revision petition is thus partially allowed. The charge framed against the petitioner-accused
under Section 306 of the IPC shall be dropped. The trial court will continue with the trial of
the petitioner-accused in respect of the remaining charge framed against him.”

CONCLUSION
Thus, it can be inferred that revisional powers are granted to the Court for correcting any
jurisdictional error or mistake or in case there is any gross miscarriage of justice by any
subordinate court while exercising their jurisdiction. These revision powers are given to
higher courts but it is still not guaranteed that the revision petition will be accepted by the
higher courts. It should also be concluded that revisional power cannot be exercised by the
High Court for those cases which are appealed in High Court itself.

The best feature of revisional matters is that the even the smaller courts can exercise the suo
moto revisional powers where the matter is in public interest and one prime thing should be
noted that in civil matters, interlocutory orders come within the purview of revision but in
case of criminal matters, interlocutory order which affects the rights of party or any specific
aspect of the case will only come under the purview of revision.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. R.V.Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Company.
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s The Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Durga Das Basu’s Criminsl Procedure Code.