Revisional Jurisdiction Expanded
What is Revisional Jurisdiction?
Revisional jurisdiction is a special supervisory power exercised by a higher court (usually a Sessions Court or High Court) over the orders and proceedings of subordinate courts to ensure correctness, legality, and propriety. It is not an appeal but a mechanism to correct jurisdictional errors or gross irregularities.
Legal Basis
In the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), revisional jurisdiction is provided under:
Section 397 CrPC: High Court’s revisional jurisdiction over criminal courts.
Section 399 CrPC: Sessions Court’s revisional jurisdiction over subordinate courts.
These provisions allow revisional courts to call for records, examine the legality or propriety of any order, and pass appropriate orders.
Characteristics of Revisional Jurisdiction
Not an Appeal: Revisional jurisdiction does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings casually.
Limited Scope: It can be exercised only to correct jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or gross miscarriage of justice.
Discretionary Power: Courts exercise this power sparingly and only in cases where there is a substantial error or injustice.
No Right: There is no inherent right to revision like an appeal.
Suo Moto Power: Courts can take up revision suo moto (on their own).
Grounds for Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction
Jurisdictional error or lack of jurisdiction.
Violation of natural justice.
Error apparent on the face of the record.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedures.
Gross irregularity or abuse of process.
Where no appeal lies, but injustice is caused.
Important Case Laws Explaining Revisional Jurisdiction
1. Union of India v. Kamlakar Tripathi, AIR 1952 SC 228
Facts: The question was whether a revisional court can interfere with the findings of fact.
Held: The Supreme Court held that revisional jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and should not be used to reappraise evidence or substitute findings of fact unless there is a manifest error or miscarriage of justice.
Significance: This case established the principle that revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used for routine re-examination of evidence.
2. Raghunath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 617
Facts: Revision was sought against the order of a Magistrate regarding framing of charges.
Held: The Court observed that revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power and can be invoked only in cases where a jurisdictional error or gross miscarriage of justice is apparent.
Significance: Reinforced that revision is not a substitute for an appeal and is meant to correct grave errors or procedural lapses.
3. Ram Avatar Aggarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 473
Facts: The revisional court interfered with a finding without jurisdictional error.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that revisional courts should not interfere with findings of fact unless the findings are perverse or illegal.
Significance: This case clarified that revisional jurisdiction is not to upset conclusions of fact arrived at by subordinate courts.
4. Mahadeo Pundlik v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1969 SC 783
Facts: Revision petition was filed to challenge an order where the Magistrate allegedly failed to apply the law correctly.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised where the order is illegal or unjust or there is an abuse of the process of court.
Significance: It recognized the importance of revisional jurisdiction as a corrective measure for procedural or jurisdictional errors.
5. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 87
Facts: Revision against an order passed by a Magistrate which allegedly failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.
Held: The Supreme Court held that failure to follow mandatory procedures can be a valid ground for revision.
Significance: This case highlights that revisional jurisdiction is available to ensure procedural fairness and legality.
Summary of Key Points from Case Law
| Case | Key Holding |
|---|---|
| Union of India v. Kamlakar Tripathi (1952) | Revision is not an appeal; no reappraisal of facts without grave error. |
| Raghunath v. State of MP (1955) | Revision for jurisdictional errors or gross miscarriage. |
| Ram Avatar Aggarwal (1953) | Findings of fact disturbed only if perverse or illegal. |
| Mahadeo Pundlik (1969) | Revision for illegality, injustice, or abuse of court process. |
| K.K. Verma (1964) | Procedural lapses can be corrected by revision. |
Practical Implications
Revisional jurisdiction serves as a check against misuse or failure of justice in lower courts.
It is not a tool for re-trying a case or re-assessing evidence.
Courts must exercise this power sparingly and with caution.
It safeguards jurisdictional sanctity and procedural fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments