📖 Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 650

Facts: The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside an order of acquittal and directed a retrial, having reappraised the evidence and taken a different view of it from the trial court. The question was the scope of the revisional jurisdiction in relation to an order of acquittal.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. It is not to be lightly exercised when invoked by a private complainant against an acquittal, and it is not a substitute for an appeal: the revisional court may not reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion for that of the trial court merely because another view is possible. The Court held that where the trial court has considered the evidence and reached a plausible conclusion, the High Court in revision cannot interfere simply because it would have taken a different view; interference is permissible only where the finding is perverse, rests on no evidence, or is the result of a misreading of the record or of a disregard of a mandatory provision.

Ratio: The revisional jurisdiction is exercised only in exceptional cases, to correct a manifest illegality or prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. It is not a substitute for an appeal, and the revisional court may not reappreciate evidence to substitute its own view.

📖 Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460

Facts: An order framing a charge was challenged in revision, and the Court was required to state the principles governing the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and the circumstances in which a charge may be interfered with.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is very limited in scope and is directed to examining the correctness, legality or propriety of an order and the regularity of the proceedings, not to re-examining the case on the facts. Where the challenge is to the framing of a charge, the Court held that the revisional court should interfere sparingly and only where the material, taken at its highest and accepted in its entirety, does not constitute the offence alleged, or where the charge is founded on no material at all, or where the proceeding is a clear abuse of process. It is not permissible to weigh the material as at a trial, to assess the credibility of witnesses, or to consider the defence the accused may have. The Court emphasised that the object of the jurisdiction is to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and that an order which is within jurisdiction and supported by material will not be disturbed merely because a different conclusion was possible.

Ratio: The revisional jurisdiction is very limited and examines correctness, legality and propriety, not the facts. A charge is interfered with only where the material taken at its highest does not constitute the offence, or the proceeding is a clear abuse of process.

⚠ The concurrent jurisdiction, and the bar on a second revision

The Sessions Judge under section 440 and the High Court under section 442 have concurrent revisional jurisdiction. A party may go to either — but not to both.

Where an application has been made to the Sessions Judge, no further application shall be entertained by the High Court at the instance of the same person. There is no second revision.

The practical consequence is that the choice of forum is final. Going to the Sessions Judge first preserves nothing above; going to the High Court first leaves nothing below.

Where a revision is barred — because the order is purely interlocutory, or because one revision has already been decided — the residual remedy is the inherent power of the High Court under section 528. But that power cannot be used to do indirectly what section 438(2) forbids directly, and is exercised only to give effect to an order, to prevent an abuse of process, or to secure the ends of justice.

The position stated shortly

1. An appeal is a statutory right; a revision is a discretionary supervisory power which nobody has a right to have exercised.

2. Only a person on whom the Sanhita confers the right may appeal. Any person may move for a revision, and the Court may act of its own motion under section 438.

3. An appeal lies against a judgment and the orders the Sanhita specifies. A revision lies against any finding, sentence or order of an inferior Criminal Court — but not an interlocutory order: section 438(2).

4. An appellate court examines the correctness on fact and law and reappreciates the evidence. A revisional court examines the correctness, legality or propriety of the order and the regularity of the proceeding.

5. A revisional court will not reappreciate evidence to substitute its own view. It interferes only where the finding is perverse, rests on no evidence, on a misreading, or where a mandatory provision was disregarded: Bindeshwari Prasad Singh.

6. The jurisdiction is exercised only in exceptional cases, to correct a manifest illegality or prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, and is not a substitute for an appeal.

7. A charge is interfered with in revision only where the material, taken at its highest, does not constitute the offence, or the proceeding is a clear abuse of process: Amit Kapoor.

8. A revisional court may not convert an acquittal into a conviction; the most it may do is order a retrial. And it may enhance a sentence only after giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

9. The Sessions Judge and the High Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction, but a party may go to one only. There is no second revision, and the choice of forum is final.

10. Where a revision is barred, the residual remedy is section 528 — which cannot be used to do indirectly what section 438(2) forbids.