In this post we will discuss about Maintainability of Revision Petition Before High Court and its power regarding revision and remedy available at disposal, the condition precedent and other essentials for maintainability of revision before the High Court.
In this report we will learn about revision and its implication. The report entails the high court’s power regarding revision and remedy available at disposal, the condition precedent and other essentials for maintainability of revision before the High Court.
What is revision?
The word “revision” has not been defined in CrPC, however, as per Section 397 of CrPC, the High Court or any Sessions Judge have been empowered to call for and examine the records of any proceeding satisfy oneself:
- as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, whether recorded or passed, and
- as to the regularity of any proceedings of an inferior court.
Therefore revision simply means a process of examination of an order of a lower court by the higher court, so as to rectify any improper exercise of judicial power.
Difference between revision and appeal?
In a general sense, appeal is a legal right conferred upon parties, however, revision completely depends on the discretion of a criminal court, which means that it is not a right as such. In criminal cases, at least one appeal is granted to an accused by the legislature, whereas there is no such right in instances of revision.
In fact, the courts have many times discussed the difference between an appeal and a revision. In the case of Hari Shankar vs Rao Ghari Chowdhury, the Supreme Court held that “the distinction between an appeal and a revision is a real one. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as fact, unless the statute conferring the right of appeal limits the rehearing in some way as. 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.”
Grounds for revision
Revision can be filed in superior court by the aggrieved party of any judgement passed by the subordinate court where no appeal lies. Revision is discretionary and supervisory power of the superior court, it does not warrant any statutory right to the aggrieved party, unlike appeal.
ALSO READ- CRIMINAL REVISION CHEQUE BOUNCE HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
What the implications of revision?
The purpose of revision is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding before any inferior court. Revision keeps the lower court within the bounds of their authority and makes them work accordingly to well define principles of law. Revisional Jurisdiction Is Analogous To Power Of Supervision And Superintedence.
Moreover, they have the powers to direct the execution of any sentence or an order to be suspended. Not just this, but to even direct to release the accused on bail or on his own bond if the accused is in confinement. They may even order an inquiry subject to certain limitations. It is clearly evident that the appellant courts have been granted such powers so as to obviate any failure of justice.
The apex court in case held in case of Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr that “the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.”
The high court has the power to take up a revision petition on its own motion i.e. suo moto or on the petition by an aggrieved party or any other party. The Allahabad High Court held in the case of Faruk @ Gaffar vs State Of U.P. that “whenever the matter is brought to the notice of the Court and the Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a case is made out for exercising the revisional powers suo motu, it can always do so in the interest of justice.”
Are there Limitations to revision?
There are certain statutory limitations that have been imposed on the High Court for exercising its revisional powers as per Section 401 of CrPC, however the only statutory requirement to exercise this power is that the records of the proceedings are presented before it, after which it is solely the discretion of the Court:
- An accused is to be given due opportunity to hear him and on order cannot be passed unless this is followed.
- In instances where a person has forwarded a revisional application assuming that an appeal did not lie in such a case, the High Court has to treat such application as an appeal in the interests of justice.
- An application of revision cannot be proceeded with if it has been filed by a party where the party could have appealed but did not go for it.
Section 397 confers power on both session court and high court but there’s a difference between the powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court being that the Sessions Judge can only exercise revisional powers which he has called for by himself, whereas the High Court has the power to take up a revisional matter by itself or when it is brought to its knowledge
Who can file a revision?
In the case of Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2012 (114) Bom LR 3549, it has been held that “It is a settled position in law that third parties have no locus standi for intervening in criminal trial. If one peruses the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it will be abundantly clear that third parties do not have any right to intervene either in the trial or at appellate stage in the High Court.”
In the case of Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 3194 it has been held that “The society for it’s orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the State representing the people which would exclude any element of private vendetta or vengeance.”
Aggrieved party, parties involved in the case may initiate revision. But the representation of revision by third party is not allowed usually. it can be safely concluded that the third parties have no locus standi in criminal trial as otherwise it would not only lead to creation of frivolous and vexatious litigation but also cause prejudice to the rights of the accused as otherwise there can not be an end to the litigation. However, the recent trend has been to allow for participation by those affected in the criminal-justice-delivery mechanism.
MAINTAINABILITY OF REVISION PETITION IN HIGH COURT
Introduction -: One of the most prominent confusions that have been prevailing within the legal land pertain to the applicability of Sections 397 to 401 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, include the confusion relating to preferential approach when it comes to cases pertaining revision? Is there any preferential judicial remedy amongst Sections 397 to 401 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 227? Section 397 poses various questions since both the session court and the high court both have concurrent jurisdiction. So, which court should be approached first? And then section 482 can be reached after exhausting the remedy of section 397 or before.
It is to be noted that remedy is available under both the sections stated above, but the answer is that powers of high court under section 482 and article 227 are unfettered powers. One thing, for sure, is that as of now, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has settled this issue in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CBI (MANU/SCOR/14976/2018) that the order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order, and Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ- CRIMINAL REVISION PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH PETITION
Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C.1 reads as under:
The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- Section and of Section 398.
Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
If an application under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
It is pertinent to note that the above stated statutory provisions show that there is no bar as to when the high court can be reached upon. It is not imperative that the remedy from the lower court, i.e., the court of sessions must be exercised before the remedy through the high court. The only bar in the sections pertains to the revision petition can only be exercised by the court under its jurisdiction. Where a petition lies against an order of the court of sessions, the revision petition can only be filed in a High Court with relevant jurisdiction. Also, it is an established fact if the revision petition is dismissed by the session’s court then such petition cannot be entertained again by the High Court.
For Example: if A has filed a revision petition against B under section 397 of Cr.P.C and it has been rejected by the court of sessions, he is barred from filing a revision petition again in the High Court. But if such petition is accepted and A gets relief, then a revision petition can still be filed by B in the High Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
The same was held in the case of CBI vs. State Of Gujarat, in which it was decided that there is no statutory limitation as to which court (Session Court or The High Court) can be approached First, and this Judgement has been referred and reiterated in various High Court decisions.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS:
When it comes to maintainability of revision, it largely pans out on the fact that whether order passed by the inferior court is a interlocutory order or final order Because according to section 397(2), the power of revision conferred by section 397(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. But sometimes, what comprises interlocutory order is ambiguous. There are a list of cases stated below that provide us with useful insight pertaining maintainability of revision.
THE FAMOUS CASE OF AMAR NATH SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA
The Apex court in case of Amar Nath Singh vs state of Haryana observed that interlocutory orders are of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. But the orders which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial, then it cannot be said to be an interlocutory order as to bar revision.
Interlocutory which is not subject matter of revision:
- Order to frame charge- Since such an order does not decide the question of guilt or innocence of the accused, it is interlocutory in nature. This order merely keeps the proceedings alive.
- Show cause order requiring execution of bond for keeping the peace under section 111 of CrPC- This is also an interlocutory order as it is passed only on certain information received by the Magistrate. At this stage of the proceedings, neither the rights of the parties are decided nor is the disputed matter finally disposed of.
- An order refusing the application for summoning witnesses- It is an order made at an intermediate stage of the commencement and termination of a case.
- Order summoning accused under section 204 of CrPC- It is an intermediate stage of criminal proceedings.
- Order under section 306 and 307 granting pardon- In Manoj Kumar Agarwal State of UP, the High Court held that remanding accused to custody by a Magistrate is an interlocutory order, cannot be revised.
An order which cannot be held as interlocutory but to be final order which is the subject matter of revision:
- Order allowing cross-examination of a witness summoned to produce document under section 94 of CrPC- A person who is summoned only to produce a document, cannot be cross-examined unless and until he has been called as a witness. If a Magistrate allows such a person to be cross-examined it adversely affects the appellant.
- Final order under section 145 of CrPC- When a final order is passed by an Executive Magistrate, the proceeding is finally disposed of and nothing remains to be done.
- Order under section 210 of CrPC- This provision empowers the Court to stay the proceedings initiated on the basis of complaint when there is police investigation is going on for the same offence against the same party. The dismissal of an application under section 210 amounts to adjudication of the case finally as far as the relief for stay is concerned.
- Order under section 167 of CrPC- When Magistrate passes an order on an application for bail by the accused made 60 days after his arrest for failure of prosecution to prepare a charge sheet within that time, there is a final determination of the right of the accused, as to whether he is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. It is a final order
- Order extending period of limitation under section 473.
ALSO READ-CRIMINAL APPEAL REVISION CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
LIMITATION
According to article 131 of Limitation Act provides criminal revision to be filed by the aggrieved party within 90 days from the decree or order passed. Section 50 of the Act provides the Court to allow criminal revision application after expiry of limitation period on sufficient cause shown for condonation for delay. According to the judgement of Sh. Salekh Chand vs. Sh. Deepak Sharma , the Sessions Court held that the period of limitation shall commence from the date of knowledge of the impugned order by the revisionist. (In this case the revisionist got the knowledge on receipt of summons on 08.11.2013 and filed on 23.01.2014 while the date of impugned order was 16.08.2013.)
CONCLUSION:
Revision is a power of superior courts; it re-examines the jurisdiction of an inferior court or the legality of a judgement exercised in that jurisdiction by the inferior court. The court can exercise the power of revision to ascertain whether there are some illegalities involved in the judgement of the inferior court or the inferior court has exceeded its power of jurisdiction The High Court has unfettered power under section 482 thereby they can call upon and examine any proceeding situate under their local jurisdiction and therefore acting as the flag bearer of legality and regularity, rule of law in proceedings of the court below them.
This post is written by Abhishek Pathak
For case specific advice, one may contact top best expert criminal/civil lawyer of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali . Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur
More info on 988817966
