Useful Tips From Experienced Criminal Revision Practitioners.

The upper court also gets the power to amend with appeal. Under revision, the Additional Court has obtained jurisdiction with respect to the findings, sentence, order passed by the subordinate court regarding the correctness and validity of the order.

Chapter 30 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 amends under Indian Criminal Law.

Under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the High Court and the Court of Session are empowered to conduct the revision. Under this power, the High Court or the Sessions Court can obtain and examine the record of proceedings taken by its subordinate courts. Subordinates may also suspend the execution of a court order after applying such records.

Both the High Court and the Sessions Court have the power to revision, but any one of them can be petitioned for revision. 

Amendments under the Code of Criminal Procedure include the question of the validity or justification of the decision or sentence. Amendments can be made in both pending and adjourned cases. The validity of the law and the questions of law can be revised again, even if a case is pending.

A special form of revision is that revision cannot be sought rightfully, but revision depends on the discretion of the court.

It will amend the case only when it wishes otherwise it will not. The amendment will be done only on the question of method, so the amendment can be done only on the question of fact under special circumstances. The court can also extend the sentence and order to grant amnesty and leave in any case which is to be reviewed. Revision takes place at two levels - initial and final.

Revision cannot be applied again

According to sub-section 3 of Section 397 of the CrPC, once the revision application has been filed in the Sessions Court, the application for this will not be accepted again in the High Court.

The revision application can be made directly in the High Court and can also be filed in the Sessions Court. It is not necessary that the parties submit the revision application before the Sessions Court before going to the High Court. If the revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court, no application shall be made to the High Court for amendment, but the High Court may, using its inherent powers, accept such amendment application under section 482 and in that case The rule of section 397 (3) will not apply. This has been said in the Puripati Jagga Reddy 1981 case.

The case of Badrilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1989 states that the revision power under CRPC is relatively limited and the High Court exercises this jurisdiction at its discretion.

If a person has applied to the Sessions Court for revision, the High Court will not accept him for revision. Similarly, if the High Court has applied for revision, the Sessions Court will not revise the case.

The case of NK Balu v. State 1996 states that if the petition is returned by the court or the court refuses to accept it, it will not be amended as it is not a judicial order. 

In the case of Charandas v. State of Haryana, it is stated that as per section 397 (3), if a person has applied for amendment under this section in the High Court, the person will not apply for second amendment as per the situation Can do. Court of Session And the court will refuse to accept the second revision petition filed in this way. 

In the case of Preetpal Singh v. Ishwari Devi, the husband filed a revision petition against the maintenance order of wife and son, which was dismissed. He then filed a Second Amendment application through his minor son. The said application was rejected on the ground that both the magistrate and the revision court had not passed any order against the minor child, hence there is no question of the child being unhappy.

The revision proceedings should be done in the presence of the accused No revision proceedings should take place in the absence of the accused.alert-info

In the case of Raghuraj Singh Roja v. Shiv Sundaram Private Limited, it is stated that no amendment proceedings should take place in the absence of the accused and the powers of amendment should be exercised only in the presence of the accused.

High Courts Power of Revision

The powers of amendment are referred to the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section empowers the High Court for amendment. It is known that the right to review should always be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, in which case it appears that the subordinate court has committed gross injustice in the case.

In Motilal Nehru v. Samrat 1931, an earlier case states that no challenge has been given while giving evidence before a subordinate court and if such evidence has been taken by the subordinate court fulfilling all the provisions of the law. This may not happen. Challenged by amendment. 

According to Section 401, the High Court can use all the powers it has to amend any proceeding in which it has appealed to the Court in relation to Section 386 389 390 and Criminal Procedure Code 1973 1973 Section 391 and Section 39 . sought. 307 has been given to the Court of Session. 

According to Section 401 (2), any order which adversely affects the accused shall not be passed without giving the accused an opportunity of a personal hearing. No provision under this section authorizes the High Court to convert the conviction findings into convictions. At the same time an appeal can be made against the decision of the subordinate court under this code, but if the appeal is not made, an amendment application cannot be made in the said situation. But as per section 401 (5), an appeal can be made, but if the person has applied for amendment, then the High Court after deciding that he has made such an application in the mistaken belief, will file such application in the appeal. Change and move forward. .

In the case of Sheetla Prasad v. Srikanth, the question of assessment under evidence was contained in the revision against conviction of the accused. 

The sessions court acquitted the accused from charges of illegal imprisonment and assault under sections 148, 342, 300 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and released them from the charge of section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to release them passed. done. Benefited from probation.

In an amendment filed by a private complainant, the High Court found the accused guilty under Section 308 and Section 324, 149 of the IPC and remanded the case for session. 

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court, stating that such a decision can only be authorized in an appeal filed by the state government. Therefore, the High Court has erred under its revision jurisdiction and hence its order is not valid. 

In the case of the state of Punjab vs. Jagbir Singh said that the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal when the police report took cognizance of the offense under Section 190 (1) B of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and acquitted the accused. is. Only the State can appeal to the High Court under Section 378 (1) of the Code.

In such a case, an appeal against the acquittal by the complainant under Section 378 (4) of the Code in the High Court can be converted into an amendment under Section 401 of the Code.