Author’s Note
The revisional powers of criminal courts play a pivotal role in ensuring that justice is not derailed by procedural irregularities or manifest errors of law. While the appellate jurisdiction allows for reappraisal of evidence and findings, the revisional jurisdiction serves a supervisory purpose — to correct grave illegalities and prevent miscarriages of justice.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), this power was contained in Sections 397 to 401. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which comes into effect from 1 July 2024, retains these powers under Sections 438 to 442, maintaining the same structure but with renumbered provisions.
This article explores the scope, limits, and judicial interpretation of revisional jurisdiction, tracing its evolution through landmark judgments and examining its application under the BNSS.
1. Revisional Jurisdiction: Nature and Legislative Basis
Revisional jurisdiction is a limited corrective power exercised by superior criminal courts to prevent subordinate courts from committing serious legal or procedural errors.
Under the Cr.P.C., Section 397 empowers the High Court or the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before a subordinate criminal court within its jurisdiction to satisfy itself of the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order passed therein.
Correspondingly, under the BNSS, these powers are now codified as:
- Section 438 – Calling for records to exercise revisional powers,
- Section 439 – Power to order inquiry,
- Section 440 – Revisional powers of the Sessions Judge, and
- Section 442 – Revisional powers of the High Court.
Notably, the revisional power does not extend to interlocutory or interim orders, as clarified by multiple judicial pronouncements. Its object is not to rehear or re-decide a case, but to ensure that judicial propriety, legality, and fairness are maintained at all levels.
2. Judicial Interpretation: Narrow but Essential Supervisory Power
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is narrow in scope and cannot be exercised routinely or casually.
(a) Landmark Precedents
In Kaptan Singh v. State of M.P. (1997) 6 SCC 185, the Supreme Court reiterated that revisional powers must be exercised only when there is a manifest illegality resulting in miscarriage of justice. The Court cited a line of earlier decisions — including Ayodhya v. Ram Sumer Singh (1982 SCC (Cri) 471), Mahendra Pratap v. Sarju Singh (1968) 2 SCR 287, and Chinnaswami v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1962 SCC OnLine SC 32) — to underline that not every error or irregularity warrants revision.
Similarly, in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Supreme Court elaborated that revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power designed to correct errors of law, not a substitute for appeal. The revisional court must not reappreciate evidence or conduct a factual re-evaluation unless the findings of the lower court are perverse or grossly unjust.
In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Court clarified that revisional powers exist to prevent injustice, illegality, or abuse of process. However, such powers are not intended for routine correction of every flawed order. Intervention is warranted only when the lower court acts without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or in flagrant disregard of procedural fairness.
3. Modern Judicial Trends under Revisional Powers
High Courts across India have continued to define and refine the contours of revisional jurisdiction, reiterating its limited and supervisory nature.
- In K. Kuppuraj v. J. Thrilokamurthy (2020), the Karnataka High Court held that revisional powers may be invoked only where the lower court’s decision is egregiously wrong, contrary to law, or based on no evidence at all.
- The Rajasthan High Court in Sudhir Bordiya v. State (2022 SCC OnLine Raj 765) observed that revision cannot be used as a substitute for discharge or appeal unless the material on record is so insufficient that a trial would be unjustified.
- Similarly, in Smt. Rekha Soni v. Gopal & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine MP 3772), the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised when there is gross illegality or miscarriage of justice, not for re-evaluating factual findings.
- The Bombay High Court in Ikba v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 43) emphasized the High Court’s duty to ensure compliance with procedural law even after an appeal is dismissed, especially concerning the custody or release of a convicted person.
The consistent judicial message is that the revisional jurisdiction serves as a constitutional safety valve — not to reopen trials but to uphold legality, prevent arbitrariness, and protect the integrity of the judicial process.
4. Revisional Power versus Appellate Power: A Fine Distinction
It is crucial to distinguish revisional jurisdiction from appellate jurisdiction.
While appellate courts can reappraise evidence and substitute their conclusions, revisional courts cannot act as a second court of appeal. Their authority is confined to:
- Identifying errors of jurisdiction or law;
- Preventing gross procedural irregularity;
- Correcting arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion; and
- Remedying manifest injustice.
In essence, revisional power is corrective and supervisory, not evaluative or substitutive. It preserves the sanctity of judicial discipline and prevents lower courts from straying beyond their lawful authority.
5. Scope under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
While the BNSS largely reproduces the framework of the Cr.P.C., the renumbering of sections and retention of terminology may create transitional challenges. The underlying principle, however, remains unchanged — revisional powers are exceptional remedies to rectify patent defects or jurisdictional errors, not instruments of re-litigation.
With the BNSS now in place, it is imperative for both the judiciary and the bar to ensure that these powers are exercised sparingly, responsibly, and within their intended limits. Overuse or misuse of revision could lead to procedural stagnation, undermining the very efficiency that the new law seeks to promote.
6. Conclusion
The revisional jurisdiction of criminal courts — whether under the Cr.P.C. or the BNSS — is a narrow but essential instrument of judicial correction. It safeguards the rule of law by ensuring that subordinate courts do not act in excess of their authority or in disregard of legal principles.
At the same time, revisional powers must not transform into an alternate appellate mechanism. The courts must balance the need for correction with the imperative of finality, intervening only when illegality results in manifest injustice.
Ultimately, the revisional jurisdiction stands as a reminder that while justice must be thorough, it must also be efficient, fair, and conclusive.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, R.K. Samyal, Advocate, based on his independent study and interpretation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They do not necessarily represent the views of any institution, organization, or forum with which the author is associated. This article is intended purely for academic and informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice.