Revision Jurisdiction Of High Court
What is Revision Jurisdiction?
The Revision jurisdiction is a supervisory power conferred on High Courts under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and also under certain other statutes.
It allows the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order recorded or passed by any criminal court subordinate to it.
This jurisdiction is not an appeal, but an extraordinary power exercised to ensure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice.
The High Court can correct errors apparent on the face of the record or prevent abuse of process.
Purpose of Revision Jurisdiction
To correct jurisdictional errors committed by subordinate courts.
To rectify gross legal or procedural irregularities.
To prevent miscarriage of justice.
To supervise inferior courts and ensure proper administration of criminal justice.
Scope and Limitations
Revision jurisdiction is not an appeal; it cannot be used to reappraise evidence or substitute the discretion of trial courts.
It is limited to questions of law or jurisdictional errors.
The High Court exercises this power sparingly and cautiously.
It cannot be invoked as a matter of routine or to reopen settled issues unless there is a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Key Provisions
Section 397 CrPC: Provides High Court the power of revision over criminal cases.
Section 401 CrPC: Lists cases in which revision can be exercised.
Other statutes may also empower High Courts with revision jurisdiction.
Landmark Case Law on Revision Jurisdiction of High Courts
1. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)
Facts:
Though primarily a constitutional case, it discussed powers of courts to supervise subordinate courts.
Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial supervision to maintain rule of law and prevent arbitrariness. While not specifically on revision, it laid down principles that encourage judicial vigilance.
2. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975) – Supreme Court
Issue: Scope of revision jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that revision is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or gross irregularities but cannot be used as an appeal.
Significance:
Clarified that revision is a corrective jurisdiction and not a forum for rehearing the case or reappraising evidence.
3. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) – Supreme Court
Facts:
High Court quashed criminal proceedings in revision to prevent abuse.
Holding:
Reiterated the extraordinary nature of revision jurisdiction and that it can be exercised to quash proceedings where there is abuse of process or no prima facie case.
Significance:
Revision jurisdiction can be used to prevent miscarriage of justice where trial courts exercise jurisdiction improperly.
4. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1966)
Issue: Whether the High Court can revise decisions where trial court has wrongly framed charges.
Holding:
The Court held that revision jurisdiction enables High Courts to intervene in the absence of jurisdiction or when charges are incorrectly framed, to prevent trial courts from acting without jurisdiction.
Significance:
Revision is a tool to maintain discipline and legality in lower courts.
5. Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan (1980)
Facts:
High Court in revision quashed charges on the ground of lack of evidence.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that revision cannot be used to test evidence; such power is limited to questions of law or jurisdiction.
Significance:
Reiterated that revision is not a substitute for appeal.
6. Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013)
Facts:
Petitioner sought revision against trial court order rejecting bail.
Holding:
The High Court can exercise revision jurisdiction in bail matters only when trial court’s order is illegal or suffers from jurisdictional defects.
Significance:
Shows limitations of revision jurisdiction in bail matters.
Summary Table of Principles
| Case | Key Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975) | Revision limited to jurisdictional errors, not appeal | Prevents reappraisal of evidence in revision |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) | Revision to prevent abuse of process | Revision as a tool to quash frivolous proceedings |
| Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1966) | Revision to correct jurisdictional defects | Ensures trial courts act within jurisdiction |
| Nand Kishore v. Rajasthan (1980) | Revision cannot test evidence | Preserves trial court’s fact-finding role |
| Anil Kumar v. Haryana (2013) | Revision in bail only for illegality or jurisdictional error | Limits revision’s scope in bail applications |
Conclusion
The Revision jurisdiction of High Courts is an important supervisory mechanism to ensure justice and prevent misuse of legal processes.
It is extraordinary and limited to jurisdictional and legal errors, and cannot replace appeals.
Courts exercise this power with caution, ensuring no interference in factual findings unless there is manifest illegality or abuse.
The jurisprudence consistently reflects a balance between correcting errors and respecting the autonomy of trial courts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments