Appeals & Revision
What is an Appeal?
An appeal is a legal process where a party who is dissatisfied with a decision of a lower court requests a higher court to review and change that decision. The appellant (the party who appeals) seeks to have the judgment reversed, modified, or set aside.
Key Features of Appeals:
Right of Appeal: Usually provided by statute or law.
Review Scope: Higher courts typically review the lower court’s application of law and sometimes facts.
Types of Appeals:
First Appeal: From trial court to an appellate court.
Second Appeal: From appellate court to a higher appellate court or Supreme Court.
Limitation Period: Appeals must be filed within a prescribed time frame.
What is Revision?
Revision is a supervisory power vested in a higher court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order passed by a lower court. Unlike appeals, revision is not a matter of right but discretion of the revisional court.
Key Features of Revision:
Discretionary Power: Courts can refuse to entertain revision if no error of jurisdiction or illegality is found.
Limited Scope: Primarily to correct jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or gross injustice.
No Reconsideration of Facts: Revision courts generally do not reassess evidence or factual findings.
Purpose: To ensure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice due to judicial errors.
Case Laws Illustrating Appeals and Revision
1. Laxman Balaji Kodgule v. State of Maharashtra (2011)
Facts: The appellant challenged a conviction by the trial court.
Issue: Whether the appellate court can re-assess the evidence or is limited to reviewing the legality of the decision.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the appellate court has the power to re-appreciate evidence and may reverse the trial court’s findings if the evidence warrants.
Significance: Clarified that appeals involve both factual and legal review, distinguishing it from revision.
2. K.K Verma v. Union of India (1955)
Facts: Petitioners sought revision of an order passed by a lower tribunal.
Issue: Whether the revisional court can interfere with findings of fact.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that revision is not a substitute for an appeal and the revisional court cannot ordinarily reappraise evidence.
Significance: Reinforced the limited scope of revision; it is confined to jurisdictional errors and legal impropriety.
3. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)
Facts: The court dealt with the power of appellate courts to grant relief not granted by trial courts.
Issue: Whether appellate courts can grant relief not claimed in the original suit.
Judgment: The court held that appellate courts have wide powers to do justice and may grant relief even if it was not granted by the trial court.
Significance: Demonstrated the broader scope of appeals compared to revision.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts: The appellant challenged the trial court’s acquittal.
Issue: Whether the prosecution can appeal an acquittal.
Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that prosecution appeals are permissible but should be based on substantial grounds.
Significance: Clarified the right and scope of prosecution appeals.
5. Union of India v. Kamlakar More (1954)
Facts: Petition for revision against an order passed by an Income Tax Officer.
Issue: Whether the revisional authority can set aside orders solely on the basis of factual error.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that revisional jurisdiction is confined to legal errors, not mere factual mistakes.
Significance: Highlighted the supervisory role of revision limited to legality, not factual reappraisal.
6. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998)
Facts: The revisional court entertained a revision petition where the trial court had made an error.
Issue: Extent of revisional powers when trial court has committed procedural irregularity.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that revision can be invoked to correct procedural irregularities or jurisdictional errors.
Significance: Demonstrated how revision protects due process.
Summary:
| Aspect | Appeal | Revision |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Right of party | Discretionary power of the court |
| Scope | Review of facts and law | Limited to jurisdictional/ legal errors |
| Purpose | Correct errors and injustices in decision | Supervise and correct legal errors |
| Courts Involved | Higher courts in hierarchy | Higher courts with revisional jurisdiction |
| Fact Reappraisal | Yes | Generally No |
RELATED Blog
0 comments