DEFINITION:

APPEAL

An appeal is whereby an individual petition for the case to be heard in a new court. In most cases, the case is heard on a
higher court from the previous one. In simpler terms, an unsuccessful party in a case decides to take the case to a higher
court to seek for reversal of a decision made by a lower court. The party that files an appeal believes that there were errors
made either on the laws or facts raised.

REVISION:

Revision is the re-examination of legal actions. They may be some assumptions made illegally, non-exercise or exercise of
jurisdiction irregularly by a lower court. In this case,, therefore, a higher court reexamines the decisions made by a lower
court to know whether all the legal actions were exercised.

Unlike the appeal, revision is not a statutory right. The superior court therefore can decide to examine or not examine a
decision made by a lower court. The main primary purpose of a revision is to make sure that justice has been administered
properly and also to correct any errors that could have led to improper justice.

If the higher court finds that the legal procedures were followed to arrive at a decision, then no changes are made no matter
how unreasonable the decision may appear. Revision is basically reworking and rewriting.

INTRODUCTION:

Appeal and revision are legal terms used in court. Though they seem similar they have certain differences; they represent
two different types of applications that an individual can opt for after unsuccessful court hearing.

The introduction of appeal and revision in court has helped many individuals receive a fair hearing. Through an appeal the
case is heard again by a different court, this may lead to a new decision. In a revision, a high court checks whether legal
actions were followed and that the court exercised regular jurisdiction.

The unsuccessful party is supposed to file an appeal in the given time limit which begins when a lower court makes a final
decision. Without the filing or late filing the appeal process is unsuccessful. The court determines whether to have a revision
of a case or not. It is not a right of the party to have one. The high court only considers revision if it suspects some illegalities
and non-exercise of jurisdiction. The process of revision involves rewriting and reworking which no time limit hence can be
filed within 90 days of the impugned order.

GENERAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEAL AND REVISION IN LAW:

Generally speaking, there are few major differences between the legal terms /appeal/ and /revision/ in law , which when not
held under the specific light of any particular section of law could be deduced as:

a) Appeal is generally a legal right of a party, but revision in law depends on the discretion of the Court, due to which it
cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In particular, in criminal cases, at least one appeal is a substantive right conferred on
accused by the statute (and it is also considered a part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution), while the revision power is discretionary and is not a matter of right.

b) In case of appeal, the appellant is heard by the court. But, it is not necessary in the case of a revision in law, and the
person filing the revision may not be formally heard.

c) Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal lies to a superior court (which may be any superior court as laid down in
the relevant provisions), but the revision lies only to the High Court or the Sessions Court (Section 399 of The Code of
Criminal procedure).

d) Appeal is required to be filed by a party to the proceedings, but revision can also be exercised /suo motu/ by the higher
court having the power of revision.

e) Revision is exercised against those orders which are not appealable.

f) Appeal involves rehearing on question of law as well as on facts of the case, whereas revision generally involves (a) Non
exercise of jurisdiction by Courts, (b) Exceeding of the jurisdiction by the Courts (c) Any material irregularity in exercising
jurisdiction .

g) An appeal is considered to be a continuation of the original proceeding whereas revision is not the continuation of the
original proceeding.
 PROCEDURAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEAL AND REVISION:

1) Legal right in Appeal vs. Revision

The appeal is a constitutional right for an unsuccessful party in the court. Revision on the other hand is discretion of the
court, meaning it can take place or not.

2) Hearing in the court

The appeal is a court hearing like any other while revision is not necessarily heard in the court.

3) Power of interference

In appeals, the courts have the power to interfere in any way but in revision the influence of intervention is limited.

4) Number of procedures in Appeal vs. Revision

There is only one procedure involved in an appeal that is the hearing of the case. In revision, however, two methods are
included, preliminary and final.

5) Continuity

An appeal is a continuation of the court proceeding on a certain case while a revision is checking whether the legal actions
were followed in the proceedings.

6) Type of examination involved in Appeal and Revision

An appeal examines law basics and facts on the other hand revision entails examination of legal actions, jurisdiction and
procedure followed to arrive at a decision.

7) Time limit

In an appeal a party is given 30 days to have filed an appeal which begins immediately a final decision is made by a lower
court. In revision there is a time limit of 90 days.

8) Filing

For an appeal to be successful the party involved must file for the appeal but in the case of revision filing is not a necessary
act.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEAL AND CRIMINAL REVISION /QUA /HIGH COURT:

1. According to Chapter XXIX, Section 372 to Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the provision of
Appeal. Whereas per Chapter XXX, Section 397 to Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the
provision of Criminal Revision.

2. The High Court admits the Appeals both on the questions of law and fact and decides them as well. However in case of
Criminal Revision under CrPC, the High Court only decides and adjudicates on a question of law. It has also powered to enter
into the questions of fact, for the ends of justice, if it deems necessary.

3. An Appellant has a statutory right to Appeal which he can demand from the Court either on a question of law or on a
question of fact or upon both as a matter or right but in case of Criminal *Revision*under CrPC, the appellant has no
statutory right; of course, he can invite the attention of the court to the grounds of revision based on law.

4. The High Court in Appeal can convert the acquittal into conviction and vice versa but in Criminal Revision under CrPC, it
cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

5. An Appeal cannot be dismissed by the High Court without having given the appellant or his pleader a reasonable
opportunity of being heard but in Criminal Revision under CrPC, the High Court is not bound to hear the applicant or the
pleader appointed on his behalf, of course, there is one exception to this rule, while enhancing any sentence the accused
shall be given an opportunity to be heard as a matter of right.
 6. In Appeal the High Court cannot direct the tender of pardon but Criminal Revision under CrPC, can do in the exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction.

7. The interested party is required to file the Appeal while the Criminal Revisional under CrPC, power may be exercised by
the High Court on its own initiative.

ELUCIDATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEAL AND REVISION VIA CASE LAWS:

Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh, (1995 the Supreme Court held as under:

“…an appeal is a continuation of a suit or proceedings wherein the entire proceedings are again left open for consideration
by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire evidence subject, of course, to the prescribed
statutory limitations. But in the case of revision whatever powers the revisional authority may have, it has no power to
reassess and reappreciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is implicit in the
concept of revision.”

State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdullah & Co(1965) the Supreme Court observed:

“When the legislature confers a right of appeal in one case and a discretionary remedy of revision in another, it must be
deemed to have created two jurisdictions different in scope and content. When it introduced the familiar concepts of appeal
and revision, it is also reasonable to assume that the well-known distinction between these two jurisdictions was also
accepted by the legislature. There is an essential distinction between an appeal and a revision. The distinction is based on
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.”

Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand, (1998) theSupreme Court held:

“It appears that the learned Single Judge has equated appellate powers with revisional powers, and that the core difference
between an appeal and a revision has been overlooked. 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 including the question whether the court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Though the
difference between the two jurisdictions is subtle, it is quite real and has now become well recognized in legal provinces.”

CONCLUSION:

The terms appeal and revision are both for providing a better way of justice to the parties. Both have their own applications
and procedures. The difference in the proceedings of the court is also present though the terms seem similar; they are used
to mean different processes in court. An appeal is whereby the case is heard again due to the dissatisfaction of a certain
party while a revision is done by a high court to ensure that legal actions were followed in arriving at a decision. Both appeal
and revision can help in making corrections of a previous hearing.
The powers granted to the victims of crime that of revision and appeal, are extremely relevant and important so that fair
justice may be meted out by the courts. It has been established that every individual, under article 21 of the Constitution of
India has a right to life and personal liberty. Thus, this requires fair trial, and since it can be so that a certain verdict or judge
may be fallible, that the verdict may be wrong, or inadequate or even unjust, then in such a situation, to ensure that fair
trials may be held and justice may be meted out to the victims of crime, provisions for revision and appeal have been
provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code.

These powers grant the victims involved a fair chance at being heard and presenting their case again, though it should be
kept in mind that a persons may even keep appealing then just out of motives of sheer vindication. For this too the Code has
created safeguards, an appeal shall not be heard unless the leave of appeal has been granted, and a revision may not be
heard in all cases, though the High Court has /suo moto/ powers of revision. These safeguards thus are aimed at making the
Criminal Procedures an infallible system of justice so that no man is wronged.