Review Of Criminal Judgments
Review of judgment in criminal cases is a judicial process where a court re-examines its own judgment or order upon a request (called a review petition) by a party, typically because of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or some other compelling reason.
Key Features of Review in Criminal Cases:
Not an Appeal: Review is different from an appeal. It is a limited remedy confined to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record.
Scope: Courts do not re-assess evidence or re-hear the entire case unless there is a manifest error.
Legal Provisions: In India, review petitions are governed by Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for criminal cases. Also, Supreme Court Rules and High Court Rules provide for review.
Time Frame: Review petitions must be filed within a prescribed period, usually 30 days from the date of the judgment.
Grounds for Review: Errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or some mistake or patent error.
Detailed Case Laws on Review of Criminal Judgments
1. Krishna Ram Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (1987)
Facts:
The petitioner filed a review petition against a criminal conviction judgment, contending that the court overlooked crucial evidence.
Issue:
Whether a review petition can be entertained if it involves re-appreciation of evidence?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or re-open the case. Review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
Significance:
Established that review courts do not entertain evidence or arguments that require re-examination of facts.
2. Sitaram Pandey v. Union of India (2009)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged a Supreme Court judgment via a review petition, alleging a patent error in the original decision.
Issue:
What is the scope of power of the Supreme Court in reviewing its own judgment?
Judgment:
The court reiterated that review petitions are only maintainable when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not for re-arguing the case. It emphasized judicial discipline and cautioned against misuse of review jurisdiction.
Significance:
Affirmed the limited scope and cautioned against frequent or frivolous review petitions.
3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts:
The State filed a review petition against an acquittal order on grounds of error in the appreciation of evidence.
Issue:
Can the prosecution file a review petition against an acquittal?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that prosecution can file a review petition, but the scope is very narrow. The court will not review the entire evidence but only consider if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Significance:
Confirmed that prosecution can seek review but the stringent scope limits it.
4. Daryao v. State of U.P. (1961)
Facts:
A review petition was filed challenging a conviction.
Issue:
Can new evidence be introduced in a review petition?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that new evidence is generally not permissible in review petitions unless it relates to something that was not known at the time of the original judgment and is crucial.
Significance:
Restricted introduction of new evidence in review petitions.
5. Chakravarti v. Union of India (1951)
Facts:
A review petition was filed against a criminal order on the ground that the original judgment was passed without considering all relevant facts.
Issue:
What is the procedural requirement for filing a review?
Judgment:
The court held that a review petition must be filed within the prescribed period and must state specifically the grounds on which the review is sought. It reiterated that a review cannot be a substitute for appeal.
Significance:
Laid down procedural rules and emphasized the limited nature of review.
6. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987)
Facts:
Although a civil case, this landmark judgment deals with the principles applicable to review petitions.
Issue:
What constitutes an “error apparent on the face of the record”?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court defined “error apparent on the face of the record” as an error that is clear and obvious and does not require detailed arguments or investigation to be discovered.
Significance:
This definition is frequently applied in criminal review petitions to distinguish errors warranting review from normal errors.
Summary Points on Review of Criminal Judgments
Review is a limited corrective procedure, not a second chance to argue the case.
Grounds for review include errors apparent on face of record, new evidence, or fundamental mistakes.
Courts exercise judicial restraint and deny frivolous or repetitive review petitions.
The scope for prosecution review petitions exists but is limited.
New evidence is generally not entertained unless exceptional.
Time limits and specific grounds are mandatory to file review petitions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments