⚠ The single most important limit

The High Court in revision shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

So where an acquittal is to be challenged, the remedy is an appeal — by the State under section 419, or by the victim under the proviso to section 413, without leave.

A revision against an acquittal is not thereby barred: the High Court may set aside the acquittal and order a retrial, or remit the matter. What it may not do is itself record a conviction.

And the limitation exists because a revisional court has not re-heard the evidence. Convicting a man on a record it has examined only for legality, without the fuller enquiry an appeal permits, is what the provision forbids.

📖 Hari Shanker v. Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698

Facts: An order was challenged in revision, and the question was how the revisional jurisdiction differs in nature from an appeal, and what a revisional court may properly do with an order it thinks wrong.

Held: 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 it limits the rehearing in some way. A revision, by contrast, is not a right at all: the power is discretionary, and is to be exercised only where the Court is satisfied that there has been a failure of justice. The Court held that the phrase according to law in a revisional provision refers to the way the decision is reached rather than to its merits: a revisional court may interfere where the decision is contrary to law, where the Court has failed to consider something material, or where it has taken into account something irrelevant — but not merely because it would have come to a different conclusion on the same material. It emphasised that revision is supervisory, and the supervising court does not substitute its own view for that of the court supervised.

Ratio: A right of appeal carries a right of rehearing on law and fact; a revision is not a right but a discretionary supervisory power. A revisional court may interfere where the decision is contrary to law or material was ignored — not merely because it would have decided differently.

📖 Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241

Facts: A revision having been decided by the Sessions Judge, a further application was made to the High Court, and the question was whether the bar on a second revision could be circumvented by invoking the High Court’s inherent power or its constitutional powers of superintendence.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the bar on a second revision is real and must be given effect: where a revision has been decided by the Sessions Judge, a further revision to the High Court on the same matter is not maintainable, and the bar cannot be evaded by relabelling the application. But the Court held that the inherent power of the High Court and its power of superintendence are not taken away by that bar: where there is a glaring defect in the procedure, or a manifest error of law, or where the order has resulted in a flagrant miscarriage of justice, the High Court may still interfere — not as a second revision, but in exercise of a power which exists independently. The Court emphasised that such interference is exceptional: the bar was enacted to prevent repetition and delay, and treating the inherent power as an ordinary route around it would defeat the provision entirely.

Ratio: The bar on a second revision must be given effect and cannot be evaded by relabelling the application. But the inherent power survives for a glaring defect in procedure, a manifest error of law, or a flagrant miscarriage of justice — exceptionally, and not as an ordinary route.

The position stated shortly

1. An appeal is a right where the Sanhita gives one; section 413: no appeal shall lie except as provided. A revision is a discretion.

2. An appeal is brought by the party the provision names — including the victim, without leave. A revision may be moved by any person, or suo motu.

3. An appeal examines the whole case and permits the court to reach its own conclusion on the evidence.

4. A revision examines the correctness, legality or propriety of the order and the regularity of the proceedings — it is not a re-hearing on the facts.

5. A right of appeal carries a right of rehearing on law and fact; revision is a supervisory power exercised where there has been a failure of justice: Hari Shanker.

6. A revisional court will not interfere merely because it would have decided differently on the same material.

7. Section 438(2) bars revision against an interlocutory order, the expression having a restricted meaning.

8. Section 442: the High Court in revision shall not convert an acquittal into a conviction — it may set the acquittal aside and order a retrial.

9. No second revision: where an application has been made to the Sessions Judge or the High Court, no further application shall be entertained by the other.

10. The inherent power survives that bar for a glaring defect in procedure, a manifest error of law, or a flagrant miscarriage of justice — exceptionally, and not as an ordinary route: Krishnan v. Krishnaveni.