Revision

Revision is the process of examination of an order of a lower court by a higher court, so as to rectify any improper exercise of judicial power.

The precise purpose of revision is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceedings before any inferior court. Revision keeps the lower court within the bounds of their authority and makes them work according to well defined principles of law. Revisional jurisdiction is analogous to power of supervision and superintendence.

Criminal Revision

The term "revision" has not been defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure,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.

In the landmark judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr, (2012) 9 SCC 460, (para 12), the Supreme Court of India held that, "the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only when the impugned decisions are grossly erroneous and there has been no compliance to the provisions of law in those judgments and the findings recorded are based on no evidence, the material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely."

Supreme Court in another landmark judgment of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198 (para 27) stated that "object of this provision was to set right a patent defect or any error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in during the proceeding." The High Court under these provisions also has the power to take up a revision petition on its own motion which is also known as Suo moto or on the petition of the aggrieved party.

The Allahabad High Court in case of Faruk alias Gaffar v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Application No. 227273 of 2012 (para 16), mentioned that "whenever the matter is brought before the notice of Court and the Court is convinced and satisfied that facts and circumstances sof the case and the Court finds that it is apt for exercising the revisional suo moto powers of the Court, it can do so in order in the interest of justice."

Grounds Of 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.

Procedure For Revision

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.

Provisions In Code Of Criminal Procedure (Crpc), 1973

The provisions for revision in criminal cases are provided from sections 397 to 405 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The sections 399, 400 and 401 of CrPC deal with the powers of revision of Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge and High Court. In the exercise of revision, the High Court is superior to Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge is superior to Assistant Sessions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, and all other magistrates including District Magistrate. In some circumstances, a "further inquiry" can be ordered under section 398 of CrPC in certain circumstances. The sections 397 to 401 of CrPC are closely interlinked and hence are to be read together.

Types Of Orders A Court Can Pass:

1. Interlocutory order is an order passed at some intermediate stage of a proceeding. It is not a kind of order that disallows the right of the parties. The expression 'interlocutory' is understood in contra-distinction to what is termed as final. A court usually disposes of many ancillary disputes raised by parties in a proceeding by issuing numerous orders. All such orders which do not finally dispose of a judicial proceeding are termed 'interlocutory' orders.
   
   Such interlocutory orders form part of the steps, taken towards the final adjudication in the prosecution of a proceeding. Every such interlocutory order may dispose of a particular point of controversy raised in the proceeding.
   
   An order would be an interlocutory order unless such an order finally disposes of the controversy between the parties. The grant or refusal of bail is an interlocutory order. Order summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, granting or cancelling bail, calling for reports etc are interlocutory orders. An order rejecting an application for recalling witnesses is an interlocutory order.
    
2.  Intermediate or quasi - final order: There are some orders which are neither interlocutory nor final in nature. They are termed intermediate orders or quasi-final orders. Therefore an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
   
   Two such intermediate orders are an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour.
   
   Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue. The basic test is that when an order rejecting a plea of the accused on a point when granted will conclude the particular proceeding it cannot be treated as an interlocutory order.
   
   There is no doubt that in respect of a final order a court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. In case of an intermediate order, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
    
3. Final order: An order on taking cognizance is a final order and hence revision is possible on that. An order on framing charge is not interlocutory. The order on tendering pardon is a final order. However an interlocutory order issued without jurisdiction is a nullity and hence is revisable.

No Revision in Certain Orders
Revision is not maintainable against:

1. orders which are appealable.
2. Interlocutory order: In an interlocutory order passed in appeal in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, no revision is allowed as per section 397(2) of CrPC. The matter involved in such an order passed in appeal can be challenged only at the end of the proceeding when the final order goes against the party.

Power to order inquiry under revision
The power of the High Court or Session Court under Section 398 of CrPC is primarily to examine any record received in exercise of powers under Section 397 CrPC – that is in regard to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Such power is exercisable to any pending or concluded proceeding. The power under Section 398 is not co-extensive with the power under Section 397 but far wider.

Therefore, the High Court or Sessions Judge can direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Magistrate to conduct further inquiry into any complaint dismissed under section 203 for having no sufficient ground, or under section 204 (4) for not paying process fee for issuing process, or the discharge of any person accused of any offence under the CrPC. The High Court or Sessions Court can order a 'further inquiry' in such cases. However a 'further inquiry' is not a 'fresh preliminary inquiry' but aT mere re-appraisal of the very evidence which was examined prior to the passing of the order.
In short when a case is before a Court of Session for revision it can exercise the powers under both the Sections 397 and 398.

Revisional court enjoys the powers of a Court of Appeal
While carrying out revision, the High Court or Sessions Judge may exercise all the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal under Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 of the CrPC, or on a Court of Sessions under Section 307 of CrPC.

A revisional court cannot issue an order prejudicial to the party without hearing the party or his pleader, in his own defence. Revision of an order cannot be invoked when there is a provision for appeal and that is not already invoked.

The revisional court can outright dismiss the revision petition if there is no sufficient ground for interference.

In a revision on acquittal, the court can reverse the order of acquittal, direct conduct of a further inquiry, order retrial of the accused, commit him for trial and pass sentence according to law if the accused is found guilty.
In case of a revision on conviction, the court can reverse the conviction and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried by the appropriate court.

In a revision for enhancement of sentence, the court can reverse the finding, and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retired by a competent court. It can maintain the sentence or alter the sentence so as to enhance or reduce it.

If revision is from any other, the court can alter or reverse such order. The court can make any amendment or issue any just and proper order.
The revisional court has no power to impose greater punishment than that might have been inflicted by the trial court.

Power of revisional court to grant bail
The revisional court can grant bail of a convicted person if he is in confinement and his revision against the conviction is pending. If the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or life or for not less than 10 years, the prosecution needs to be heard before granting bail. The court can suspend the execution of sentence as well, if revision is pending.

HC can direct arrest in acquittal
When a revision of an order of acquittal is considered in revision, the High Court can order arrest of the accused and bring him before it or a subordinate court and commit him to prison pending the disposal of the revision petition.

Revisional court can take additional evidence
To ensure justice, revisional court can take additional evidence in quite suitable cases. This power is to ensure justice but is not an arbitrary discretion. This power is to be used only sparingly. The court shall record its reasons when using this power. This power should not be used as a disguise for a retrial or to direct fresh disposal of the case by the trial court.

Revisional court can allow pardon to an accomplice
The revisional court can tender pardon to an accomplice, who has directly or indirectly involved in any offence, in order to obtain evidence of a person accused of an offence.

HIGH COURT'S POWER OF REVISION
The revisional powers of the High Court are very wide. The jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and is used only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring miscarriage of justice. The revision is a procedural mechanism to rectify any manifest error in justice dispensation.

HC Can Withdraw Or Transfer Revision Case
In a joint trial, if one among the accused persons moves the High Court and any other accused person moves the Sessions Court on the same matter, the High Court should decide which one of the two courts should deal with the matter. While deciding the matter the High Court should consider the general convenience of the parties and the importance of the issues involved. If the High Court transfers the revision petitions to the Sessions Court and it disposes the petitions no further revision is possible before the High Court.

Order Of The High Court On Revision
When the High Court or Sessions Court decides a case in a revision petition, it shall certify its judgment or order to the court which the order or sentence appealed against was originally passed.
If the order is to a judicial magistrate, it shall be sent through the Chief Judicial Magistrate and to an Executive Magistrate through the District Magistrate. The lower court should then make the judgment conformable to its judgment.

LIMITATION IMPOSED ON HIGH COURT
There are certain statutory limitations imposed on the High Court for exercising its revisional powers as given under Section 401 of the CrPC, however the only requirement to exercise this power is that the records of the proceedings are presented before the Court, after which it solely the discretion of the Court:
An accused should be given due opportunity of being heard or an order cannot be passed unless this procedure 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 applications as an appeal in the interests of justice.
• 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, as well as the Session Court, may call for any record of any proceeding of any inferior criminal court which comes under its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality of propriety of any finding, sentence etc. Thus, 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.

DIFFERENCE OF REVISIONAL POWER
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.

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. Deepak Sharma Criminal Revision No. 10/2014, 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 UNDER REVISION
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 (1981) 2 SCC 758 (para 5), 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.

Conclusion:
Revision gives power to the victims of crime. They are important to give fair justice and every individual under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has a right to life and personal liberty. This requires a fair total for that trails should be held without mistakes and inadequacies. These powers give the victims a free chance of being heard and they their case will be presented again after appeal for revision. High court can also take suo moto action on powers of revision. The powers of revision helps in benefitting people who have been wronged in justice by law or if they are victims of erroneous decisions.

The revisional jurisdictions of the High Court is quite extensive and there can be no form of any judicial injustice to penetrate this power. High Court has been allowed to use these inherent powers in all cases of revision and this has been proved in many cases. These inherent powers shall apply to both substantive and procedural matters.

Moreover, there is no doubt that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is quiet extensive. In fact, it can be said that no form of any judicial injustice can permeate through this power. It has been held in various decisions that the High Court is allowed to exercise its inherent powers when dealing with cases of revision. These inherent powers apply to both the substantive as well as procedural matters. However, it cannot re-examine any evidence.

References:

1. All About Revision in Criminal Cases - https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/all-about-revision-in-criminal-cases-8894.asp
2. What is Revision Under CrPC - https://www.lawgurus.in/what-is-revision-under-crpc/
3. Criminal Revision in Indian Law - https://tripakshalitigation.com/criminal-revision-in-indian-law/