Revision is an art or revising or revisiting a work done with intent to fix the thing for betterment, a revision of something opens the scope of visiting a work done which might or might not attract alteration.
DEFINITION:
In a nutshell the word Revision means:
To make a revision of something that is written or something that has been decided means to make changes to it in order to improve it, make it more modern, or make it more suitable for a particular purpose.
As per Macmillan (dictionary), the word Revision means the process of changing, improving, or making additions to something such as a plan, law, or piece of writing.
Merriam Webster (dictionary) defines Revision as a result of revising: ALTERATION.
Whereas The Cambridge (dictionary) explains Revision as, a change that is made to something, or the process of doing it.
INTRODUCTION:
The process of criminal justice has some serious consequences on an individual’s life, primarily on the right to life and personal liberty. Each and every institution built by humans is prone to fallibility; therefore, this applies to the decisions rendered by courts as well. Resultantly, there should be specific provisions in place so as to scrutinize the decisions of lower courts in order to obviate the scope of miscarriage of justice.
In a general sense, appeal is a legal right conferred upon parties, however, revision completely depends on the discretion of a criminal court, which means that it is not a right as such. In criminal cases, at least one appeal is granted to an accused by the legislature, whereas there is no such right in instances of revision. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as fact, unless the statute conferring the right of appeal limits the rehearing in some way as. The power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior Court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law.
Section 397 to Section 405 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes the powers of revision granted to the higher courts, and the procedure to exercise these powers.
However, there are certain cases in which there is no right to appeal. The legislators bore this in mind and incorporated the concept of review procedure called revision in the legislature so as to completely avoid any miscarriage of justice for even those cases where the right of appeal has been barred by Law.
REVISION IN INDIAN LAW (CRIMINAL)
Revision is the process of examination of an order of a lower court by a Higher court, so as to rectify any improper exercise of Judicial Power.
The precise purpose of Revision is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding before any inferior court. Revision keeps the lower court within the bounds of their authority and makes them work accordingly to well defined principle of law. Revisional Jurisdiction is analogous to Power of supervision and superintendence.
The word “revision” has not been defined in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, as per Section 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court or any Sessions Judge have been empowered to call for and examine the records of any proceeding satisfy oneself:
- As to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, whether recorded or passed, and
- As to the regularity of any proceedings of an inferior court.
Moreover, they have the powers to direct the execution of any sentence or an order to be suspended. Not just this, but to even direct to release the accused on bail or on his own bond if the accused is in confinement. They may even order an inquiry subject to certain limitations. It is clearly evident that the appellant courts have been granted such powers so as to obviate any failure of justice.
CASE LAW FOR REVISION:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the context of this provision, held in the case of Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr that “the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.”
The Supreme Court, further explained this provision, held in the case of State Of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu that “the object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.”
The High Court has the power to take up a revision petition on its own motion i.e. suo moto or on the petition by an aggrieved party or any other party. Where The Allahabad High Court held in the case of “Faruk @ Gaffar vs State Of U.P.” that “whenever the matter is brought to the notice of the Court and the Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a case is made out for exercising the revisional powers suo motu, it can always do so in the interest of justice.”
There are certain statutory limitations that have been imposed on the High Court for exercising its revisional powers as per Section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 however the only statutory requirement to exercise this power is that the records of the proceedings are presented before it, after which it is solely the discretion of the Court:
An accused is to be given due opportunity to hear him and on order cannot be passed unless this is followed.
In instances where a person has forwarded a revisional application assuming that an appeal did not lie in such a case, the High Court has to treat such application as an appeal in the interests of justice.
An application of revision cannot be proceeded with if it has been filed by a party where the party could have appealed but did not go for it.
The High Court, as well as the Sessions Court, may call for record of any proceeding of any inferior criminal Court situated within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality of propriety of any finding, sentence, etc. Thus, the Sessions Judge could examine the question in relation to the inadequacy of sentence in view of the powers conferred on him by Section 397(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
DIFFERENCE OF REVISIONAL POWER:
The difference between the powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court being that the Sessions Judge can only exercise revisional powers which have been brought to him by the revisionist, whereas the High Court has the power to take up a revisional matter by itself or when it is brought to its knowledge. The powers of a Sessions Court are the same as that of the High Court while dealing with revisional cases. The Madras High Court in the case S. Balasubramaninan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu held that “a Sessions Judge can entertain an application in revision against sentence and enhance the sentence in revision in certain cases.” It has also been previously held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Alamgir vs State of Bihar that in respect of enhancement of sentence in revision the enhancement can be made only if the Court is satisfied the sentence imposed by the trial Court is unduly lenient, or that in passing the order of sentence, the trial court has manifestly failed to consider the relevant facts.
CONCLUSION:
Revision gives power to the victims of crime. They are important to give fair justice and every individual under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has a right to life and personal liberty. This requires fair trial for that trails should be held without mistakes and inadequacies. These powers give the victims a free chance of being heard and they their case will be presented again after appeal for revision. High can also take suo moto action on powers of revision. The powers of revision helps in benefitting people who have been wronged in justice by law or if they are victims of erroneous decisions.
The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is quite extensive and there can be no form of any judicial injustice to penetrate this power. High Court has been allowed to use these inherent powers in all cases of revision and this has been proved in many cases. These inherent powers shall apply to both substantive and procedural matters.
Moreover, there is no doubt that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is quiet extensive. In fact, it can be said that no form of any judicial injustice can permeate through this power. It has been held in various decisions that the High Court is allowed to exercise it inherent powers when dealing with cases of revision. These inherent powers apply to both substantive as well as procedural matters. However, it cannot re-examine any evidence.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
