Chanakya National Law University, Patna

Criminal Procedure Code Project on

Revsion

Submitted To: Fr. Peter Ladus

(Faculty for Criminal Law )

Submitted by Sukirti Shikha

Roll No : 823
Semester : 4TH

Acknowledgment

The present project has been able to get its final shape with the support and help of people
from various quarters. My sincere thanks go to all the members without whom the study
could not have come to its present state. I am proud to acknowledge gratitude to the
individuals during my study and without whom the study may not be completed. I have taken
this opportunity to thank those who genuinely helped me.

With immense pleasure, I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Mrs. Shivani Mohan ,
Faculty for Economics, Chanakya National Law University for helping me in my project. I
am also thankful to the whole Chanakya National Law University family that provided me all
the material I required for the project. Not to forget thanking to my parents without the cooperation of which completion of this project would not had been possible.
I have made every effort to acknowledge credits, but I apologies in advance for any omission
that may have inadvertently taken place.
Last but not least I would like to thank Almighty whose blessing helped me to complete the
project.

Research methodology

Aims and Objectives

Research plan

Scope and limitations

Hypothesis

Sources of data

Method of writing

Contents

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

INTRODUCTION
POWERS OF THE COURT
PROCEDURE FOR REVISON
SOURCES OF REVISION
CASE LAWS
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Introduction
The provisions for reviewing the decision of a criminal court are essential for the due
protection of life and liberty and are rooted in the conception that men including the
Judges and Magistrates are fallible. In case where the remedy of appeal has for any
reason failed to secure fair justice, the code provides for another kind of review
procedure, namely, revision. Very wide discretionary powers have been conferred
on the Court of Session and the High Court for the purpose of 'revision'. While
making provisions for extensive powers of revision for ensuring correctness, legality,
and propriety of the decisions of criminal courts, the code has also taken care to see
that this review procedure does not make the judicial process unduly cumbersome ,
expensive or dilatory.
As the code says that there is no right to appeal in every case and it is confined to
such cases as are specifically provided by the law. Even in such specified cases the
code allows only one appeal and a review of the decision of the appellant court is not
normally permissible by way of further appeal to yet another higher court. In order to
avoid the possibility of any miscarriage of justice in cases where no right of appeal is
available the code has devised another review procedure, namely REVISION.
Section 397 to 405 of Criminal Procedure Code deals with the powers of revision
conferred on the higher courts and the procedure to regulate these powers. The
powers of revision conferred upon the higher courts are very wide and are purely
discretionary in nature. Therefore no party has right to be heard before any court
exercising such powers.
The basic object behind the code in section 401 is to empower the high court to
exercise the powers of an appellant court to prevent failure of justice in cases where
the code does not provide for appeal. The power however is to be exercised only in
exceptional cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice owing to: - a defect
in the procedure or a manifest error on the point of law, excess of jurisdiction, abuse
of power, where decision upon which the trial court relied has since been reversed or
overruled when the revision appeal is being heard. In exercising the power of
revision, which is discretionary, the court should always bear in mind the limitation
that grab of exercising its power of revision; it cannot ion effect exercise the power of
appeal in the face of statutory prohibitions.
The revisional powers though are quite wide, have been circumscribed by certain
limitations. Such as (A) in such cases where an appeal lies but there is no appeal
brought in, originally no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the
instance of the party who would have appealed. (B) The revisional powers are not
exercisable in relation to any due protection of life and liberty and are rooted

interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry and trial. (C) The court exercising
revisional powers is not authorized to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction into one of convection. (D) A person is allowed to file only one application
for revision either to the Court of Session or to the High Court if once such an
application is made to one court, no further application by the same person shall be
entertained by the other court.

1. Power to call for and examine the record of the lower court According to Section
397(1), the High Court or a Sessions Court may noe us sr ,t within its local
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to theesscioorrnsosec Sections 398401. considers any corrective action necessary, it has ample legality or propriety of
any finding or order of such inferior court. The 'proceeding' referred to in Section

397(1) above includes On examination of such record if the High Court powers tou t
Sessions s do n y under judicial o proceeding taken before any inferior criminal
court even thoughnliyt may notj o turdelicatiealtio any specific offence. The
expression 'inferior criminal court' inferior to the High Court (or Sessions Court). All
Magistrates, whether executive or judicial, and whether exercising original or
appellate jurisdiction shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge
[Explanation to Section 397(1)1.5 The Sessions Judge is also inferior to the High
Court within the meaning of Section 397(1), and the High Court may call for and
examine the record of any proceedings before a Sessions Judge. The High Court or
the Sessions Court may, when callingt, for such record under Section 397(1), direct
that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in
confinement, that he be released on bail on his own bond pending the examination
of the record [S. 397(1)1. The provisions regarding bail have already been discussed
in Lecture 8. 2. No revision in respect of interlocutory orders The powers of revision
conferred by Section 397(1) above are not to be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or

5. A Collector passing an order of confiscation or otherwise under the Essential

Commo ect r, dities A or the Government constituting as an appellate authority
under that Act cannot be C) inferior inf erior criminal court. See G.C. Venkateswarlu
v. State of A.P., 1986 Cri LJ 1713 (AP H amachandra v. Jambeswar, 1975 Cri Li 1921
at p. 1922 (Oh HC); Thakur Das v. State 1 6. R ' (1978) 1 SCC 27: 1978 SCC (Ch)
21 at p. 28: 1978 Cri Li 1.

-The purpose of a bar on the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order
is to bring about expeditious disposal of criminal cases. 7 the bar is not however likely
to prejudice any party aggrieved by the interlocutory order as such party can always
challenge it in due coarse if the final order goes against it
The code does not define interlocutory order , but it is obviously an intermediate
order made during the preliminary stages of an inquiry or trail to advance the cause
of justice for the final determination of the rights between the parties. 8
Generally speaking, the test for of the parties or leaves them to be determined by the
court in the ordinary The term in order' is not to be understood in any broad or artistic
finally disposes of the Y* merely' denotes orders of a it !Tier . purely interim or
temporary nature which do not . ouch the important rights or Habil* ' acide or t ities of
the parties. For instance, orders rting witnesses, adjourning cases, grzinting or
cancelling bail, calling for and such other steps in the aid of the pending proceeding
utory orders.9 It may, however, be noted that the expression 'interlocutory are all 'IAte should not be equated as invariably being the of the expression 'final '- There
may be an order passed during the course of a proceeding which may 1' vet it may

not be an interlocutor o d lobe 'final' ., y r erpure or simple. Some kind of may fall
in-between the two, and the bar in Section 397(1) is not meant to be order In 2,tai to
such kinds of intermediate orders. It is, according, to the Supreme Court, i;ther
advisable nor possible to make a catalogue of orders to demonstrate which sof
orders would be merely, purely or simply interlocutory and which kinds of i.1 . ado
would be final, and then to prepare an exhaustive list of those types of orders oich
fall in-between the two. 1 An order of bail granted by a Magistrate is poitted to be
challenged under the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court .0010 as under this
jurisdiction the grievance of the applicant is that the order ou bad from its inception."
An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which when accepted, will
conclude the particular proceeding, will not be ansidered as an interlocutory order
within the meaning of Section 397(2).12 Interlocutory orders which are without
jurisdiction and are nullities, have no 'nence in the eye of law. The bar under Section
397(2) will have no application to Parmahwari Devi v. Slate, (1977) 1 SCC 169: 1977
SCC (('iii 74 at p. 77: 1977 Cri LI 245: Mb Limaye v. State of Maharashtra. (1977) 4
SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 at p. 15: I978 Cri L/165; Amur Nath v. State of
Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137: 1977 SCC (Cm 585 at p. 589: 1977 fl 1J 1891; see
Notes on clauses 407 to 415. t. Nola v. State, 1975 Cri Li 1274 at p. 1276 (Raj HC);
Parmeshwari Devi, v. State, (1977) 1 SCC I49:1977 SCC (Cri) 74. ! AttiarNath v.
State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137: 1977 SCC (Cri) 585. '1' &_!iii Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 1978 SCC (Cri) 10. As to the question bail order is
interlocutory see the cases discussed in Lecture 8. Si,takiintaia v. Rothan Lai
Aggarmd, 1985 Cri LI 68 (Born 1-1C) contra. State of UP. v. , 7! sm. 0,1988 Cri U
1434 (All lit').71,44maye, v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri)
10; Ankaputtaswamy -191.1*"vice da. .. 1978 Cri Li 1233 (Kant BC); Amor Nath V.
State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 1.37: 341,4P)) 585 See also Bush India Ltd. v.
IA'kharaj Pohoomal Kewairamani, 1984 Cri U

mid,
istiedoototy
oivies:troih'iett:thou'111.-.)iiindlth::titi...:.v'c'
.07f;).r11.31:
intertpctitori: no orders at all." hely:, the bar put by Section 397(2) on the-A question
may arise as to w of an interlocutory order can be circumvented by the aggrieved
party by invoiti . shall be in the negative. If the order assahiletnist inherent powers of
the
High
Court
under
Sectippoounr:118):0.B1f4uaEtnxi
nicnetecpasrtliezthusteoapriymartchp,uatiglicedanswiwterli_alt: High Court will refuse
to exercise its inherent clearly brings about a situation w-hich is an abuse of the v
process of thecourt or fo-"r4r the urPose of securing the ends of justice inter,eretie .,
l. , g Court is absolutely in) s , then nothing contained in Section _197(-) can limit or
affect the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court. But such cases the same
person shall be entertained by either of them. The object is to any person either to
the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further applicationl a 3. Only one rev
isioll petition either to Sessions Court or the Highpreventeour n initiated illegally,
vexatiously. or as being without jurisdiction.n " One such case would be the
desirability of quashing of the criminal proceozi. n-ases would be few and farpb empi
final made a:et ai obnyd Section 397(3) provides that if an application for revision
has been Ing multiple exercise of revisional powers and to secure early finality to,
iofrtdheersa.ppTehaael has been rejected by it, a revision may lie to the High

Court.17 A decision of the Sessions Judge, if he is approached first, is person

aggrieved conclusive.''' In a case where the Sessions Court is the appellate courot
approach the High Court again in revision.18 Such being the position under by the
Sessions Judge's decision in revision would have ndoerritghhet(nt ew ) Code, an rule
or practice which requires such a person to first approach the Sessions Jud.Ye
before going to the High Court would be out of place.19 It may, however, be noted,
that the restriction on further revision as contained in Section 397(3) is confined to a
second revision application filed by the same person only .2
13 Blzinza Naik v. State. 1975 Cri L.1 1923 at p. 1930 (On i HC). See also Deena
Nath v. Daitari Charon, 1975 Cri Ll 1931 at p. 1932 (On i HC); Satyabrata v. Jarnal
Singh, 1976 Cri Li 446 at p. 448 (Ori HC). 14. Section 482 is as follows: "Nothing in
this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code,
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice." 15. Madhu Lintaye V. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC
(Cri) 10 at p. 15: 1978 Cri U 165. See also Raj Kapoor v. State, (1980)1 SCC 43:
1980 SCC (Cri) 72; Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi, (1983) 1 SCC
1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115: 1983 Cri U 159 and R. Srinivasan v. G. Shannzugha
Vadivelu, 1984 Cri Li 377 (Mad HC). 16. Chhail Das v. State of Haryana, 1975 Cri Li
129 at p. 130 (P&H HC). See also Ranzchandra Puja Panda Samant v. Jantbeswar
Patra alias Janzuna Patra, 1975 Cri Li 1921 (Ori HC): Deena Nath v. Daizari Charan,
1975 Cri LJ 1931 at p. 1932 (On i NC). Also see Deepti v. Akliil Rai. (1995)5 SCC
751. 17. Asghar Khan v. State of U.P., 1981 Supp SCC 78: 1982 SCC (Cri) 146. 18.
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh, (1979) 1 SCC 460: 1979 SCC (Cfi) 348 at pp. 352, 353:
1979 CriLJ 318; Chhedilal v. Krunla, 1978 Cri Li 50 (All HC); Swetamber Jain
Sampraday v. Digamber Anutay, 1982 Cri Li 701 (Raj HC); Baban v. Sambainurthy,
1980 Cri Li 248 (AP HC). 19. Salyanarayana v. Kantilal, 1976 Cri U 1806 at p. 1812.
(Guj HC). See also P. Abbulu V. Stale. 1975 Cii Li 139 (AP HC); Madhavlal v.
Chandrashekhar, 1976 Cri U 1604 (Born HC). See for 20. oztrairy view, Arun Kumar
v. Chandanbai, 1980 Cri U 601 (Born HC). taildra v. Jambeswar, 1975 Cri U 1921 at
p. 1923 (On i HC).
cording to Section 1e5588'11d decision or o tan ed Particulars instead of writ ai
Metropoli Magi uired ng a judgment; and in all appealable ca to record a brief
statement of the reasons for the decision. The stat witted under the above Section
404 supplements the meagre record of the case d helps the court of revision in
making a decision. wer of court of revision to order inquiry n examining the record (or
otherwise ), the court of revision may direct tthhe Judicial Magistrate to make, or to
Subordinate Magistrate, further inquiry incat use to be made through ahny obeeen
.srnissed under Section 203 or Section 204(4). any complaint which as n used of an
offence who has been discharged However, or to th oweviner, thee ccouarste of t y
person t make any such direction for inquiry into the case of any person who has
been charged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why
such direction should not be made. [S. 3981 6. Sessions Judge's powers of revision
These powers are contained in Section 399 which provides as follows: (1) In the
case of any proceeding, the record of which has been called for by the ,essions
Judge himself, he may exercise all or any of the powers which may be rcised by the
High Court under Section 401(1). (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is
commenced before a Sessions ge, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5)

of Section 401 shall so far as may apply to such proceeding, and references in the
said sub-sections to the High ourt shall be construed as a reference to the Sessions
Judge. A revision by the mplainant to the Sessions Court against acquittal of the
accused by the trial court held to be entertainable with special leave.22 This applies
to a prosecution even if was instituted by the police and not on the basis of a
complaint.(3) Where any application for revision is made by any person before the
ions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person II
be final and no further proceedings by way of revision at the instance of such all be
entertained by the High Court or any other court. uld appear from Section 399(3)
above that, while a person has the choice ye either the High Court or the Sessions
Judge under Section 397, if he to go before the Sessions Judge he cannot thereafter
go before the High even if the Sessions Judge rejects his revision application.
Therefore, the rule the old Code that except under exceptional circumstances the
High
Lure 15, para 1(2). Gangaram Gholem v. Vinoba Sona Khode, 1992 Cri L..1 870
(Born HC). unity v. Balaram Mohantv, 1992 Cri Li 996 (On HC).

s on Crioninat pro
214- revimon application unless the Sessions Judge Court _44inkt vot=entertain a :
moved in the first instance is nc onsistent with the scheme of the present new h '411
any insistence on following e , I old rule of practice hereafter would result .5
agnhnCotouarntyuniodnegreSreebetiofnoi31097 rule of practice followed by many 7.
High Court's powers of revision view of Section 397(3) and Section 399(). destruction
of the right of a person t Ho moveh othe urt sHci 24 th vied in
(1) Specific powers.The High Court may, in its discretion exercise any of
powers conferred on a court of appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or
one Court of Session by Section 307 (power to tender pardon to the accused
person) and, when the Judges composing the court of revision are equally
divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by
Section 392. [S. 401(1)]

The revisional powers of the High Court are very wide and no form of judicial
injustice is beyond their reach. The powers are entirely discretionary. 25 But
the decisions should be supported with reasons.26
The Supreme Court's observations in State of A.P. v. M. Poshetty27, are
revealing:
"A general and omnibus statement that 'courts below erred in convictin. the
accussed' is hardly sufficient to make judicial interference with the concurrent
findings. We are of the opinion that there was abdication of the High Court's
function in exercising the revisional jurisdiction".28 The section does not
create any vested right in the litigant, but only conserves the power of the
High Court to see that justice is done and that the subordinate courts do not
exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their powers.29
(2) Restrictions on invoking the revisionai powers.The High Court can
exercise its revisional powers suo motu, that is, on its Own initiative, or on the
petition of any aggrieved party or even on the application of any other person.
However, there are two limitations:
(a) As seen earlier in Section 399(3), where any application for revision is
made by any person before the Sessions Judge no further proceeding by way
of revision at the instance of the same person shall be entertained by the High
Court.
(b) Secondly, in a case where an appeal lies hut no appeal has been brought,
then according to Section 401(4), no proceeding by way of revision shall be
entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
24. P. Abbulu v. State, 1975 Cri Li 139 at pp. 140-141 (AP HC); kesavan v.
Sreedharan, 1978 Crill 743 (Ker HC) (FB); Satyanarayana v. Kantilal, 1976 Cri Li
1806 (Guj HC). See for contrary view, Arun Kumar v. Chandanbai, 1980 Cri Li 601
(Born HC).
25. This also includes exercise of power under S. 427 of the Code to specify
whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. See V. Venkateswarlu
v. State of A.P., 1987 Co U 1621(AP HC).
26. State of A.P. v. Yelatnati Venicataraju, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1047.
27. (2001) 10 SCC 629.
28. Id. at p. 1037.
29. P_rranab Kumar ttlitra v. State of W.B., AIR 1959 SC 144: 1959 Cri Li 256. See
also RajeShWar P asad v. State of Bihar, 1972 Cri LJ 258 at p. 261 (Pat HC) (FB):
AIR 1972 Pat 50.

These restrictions, it may be noted, apply only in cases where the high courts
revisional powers are invoked by any aggrieved party. In a case where one party
appealed to the sessions and the other invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High
court praying for the transfer of the.appeals from Sessions Court to the high court to
be heard along with the revision, it was held that though in exceptional
circumstances it could be permitted, in circumstances of the case, the revision
petion should b kept pending till the disposable of the appeals from sessions court to
the high court to be heard along with the revision, it was held that though in
exceptional circumstances it could be permitted, in the circumstances of the case ,
the revision petition should be pending till the disposal of the appeal by the sessions
court.30 The restricitons do not apply when the high court ats suo motu. The high
court, as an effective instrument for dadministration of criminal justice, keeps a
constant vigil and wherever it finds that justice hass suffered, it takes upon itself as
its bounden duty to suo motu act where there is flagrant abuse of the law.31

(2) How the powers are exercised.--The exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is
discretionary and the powers under Section 401(1) are to be used only in
exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is
manifest error on point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice.3 Ordinarily while exercising the revisional jurisdiction
the Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below
on a question of fact. But where the finding of fact is vitiated so as to cause
miscarriage If justice as, for instance, when it is based on no evidence,. or
where evidence has been overlooked or evidence has not been considered re
in its true perspective, the court will and must interfere.33 However, in cases
where no appeal has been provided and a revision petition is the only remedy,
the court of revision will be more careful in appreciation of evidence. It is true
that the revisional jurisdiction does not postulate re-appreciation of evidence,
but that should be appreciated in the light of the limitation on the right to go in
appea1.34
While exercising the powers of revision the court has to work under two
statutory limitations: (a) As seen earlier the powers of revision shall not be
exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed by any inferior criminal
court. [S. 397(2)-1 (b) The High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction shall
have no authority to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. S.
401(2)] considering the limitation contained in (ii) above, it is incumbent on the
High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of
conviction
30. Jogi Naidu v. Kayalada Venkatarantana, 1986 Cri Li 963 (AP HC).

31 Nadir Khan v. State, (1975) 2 SCC 406: 1975 SCC (Cri) 622 at p.624 1976 Cri U
1721. See also kanieli Chandra v. A.P. Piave, is (1973) 3 SCC 884: 1973 SCC (Cri)
566 at p. 570: 1973 Cri U 201; Raine.sh Chandra Arora v. State, AIR 1960 SC 154:
1960 Cri Li 177; Ratan Singh v. State of M.P., 1977 Cri L.1 673 at p. 675 (MP HC);
Eknath v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 25: 1977 SCC (Cri) 410 at p. 413:
1977 Cri Li 964. See also TV. flanteed, In re, 1986 Cri Li 1001
32, Amar Chand v. Shona Bose, (1973) 4 SCC 10: 1973 SCC (Cri) 651 at p. 657:
1973 Cri Li 577: (Ker HC). &train prasad v, state of Rajasthan, 1978 Cri LI 1445 at p.
1451: MR 1978 Raj 162 (FB). Also see Ayodhya Dubey v. Rain Stoner Singh, 1981
Supp SCC 83: 1982 SCC (Cri) 471: 1981 Cri Li _ 1016; Manu Neltera v. State of
Orissa, 1988 Cri Li 1911 (On i HC).
33- Narayan Tewary v. State of W.B., AIR 1954 SC 726: 1954 Cri Li 1808; Santokh
Singh v. lzhar Hussain, (1973) 2 SCC 406: 1973 SCC (Cri) 828 at p. 834: 1973 Cri Li
1176; Jagir Kaur V.
34 Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1521: (1963) 2 Cri Li 413 at p. i 417. si aniuddin v.
State, 1975 Cri Li 841 at p. 842 (Del HC).

by the indirect method of ordering retrail 35 this is all the more necessary .when
the .State had not thought it fit to appeal to the high court against the finding of
acquittal and when the high court is exercising revisional jurisdiction at the instance
of a private party. The Supreme court has held in a number of decisions that the
revisional powers of the High Court to set aside the order of acquittal (and ordering
retrial) at the instance of parties should be exercised only in exceptional cases where
there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of
law a miscarriage of justice.36
It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental
principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the
order of acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted defendant. This power should
be exercised with great care and caution.37
(4) Opportunity to a party of being court cannot direct further inquiry against any
person who has been discharged showing cause why such direction unless that
person has had an opportunity of showing .v g should not be made. [proviso to
Section 3981

(b) Similarly the revisional court shall not pass any order to the prejudice of the
accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own defence. [S. 401(2)1
These provisions are consistent with the basic principle of natural justice, namely,
audi alteram partem (no man should be condemned unheard). Subject to the abovesaid two rules the court of revision has been given discretion in the matter of hearing
any party by Section 403 which provides as follows: "Save as otherwise expressly
provided by this Code, no party has am- right to be heard either personally or by
pleader before any court exercising its if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers of
revision, but the court may, powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader.
(5) Treating application for revision as perttion of appeal.If an application for
revision has been made to the Iligh Coutt l,,, an,, person in a case where an appeal
lies, and the High Court is Aati.s14-(-1 that th,.. (c.clAiEitt application was made
court may treat theut: under the erroneous belief that n,, opl.cal 11 t th ,ro ,5 ,-,,s k
revisional application as a petition ol Appeal and deal with the same accordingly. [S.
401(5)]
(6) No abatement of revision by death of the petitioner.- while excercising revisional
jurisdiction the high court is discharging its statutory function of supervising the
administration of criminal justice. Hence the consideration applying of appeal under
section 394 may not apply to a revision application.38 in a proper case , the high
court can exercise its powers of revision in respect of an order made against the
accused person even after his death.39 ,
35, K. Chumaswamy Reddy v. Salle 4 P., AIR 1 ia 1 sc 11:;s:. (1963) 1 Cn L.1 8 at Ps
11; Jha v. Polailal 131.th.,0, AIR 1951 SC 316: 52 Li 1248 at p. 1250: Mahendra
Pratap Singh v. Saijii Singh. AIR 1968 SC 707: 1968 Co Li 865 at p. 867; Khetrabasi
Saw, v. Stair of Orissa, (1969) 2 SCC 571 at p 575: 1970 (ii 1..J 31)9, Ohl rehdra
iVitra v. Muthunda Lai Sea, AIR 1955 SC 584: 1955 Cri Id 1299. 36. D. Stephens v.
Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196: 5' ('ii 1-1 510 at t, 51': Satvendra Nath Dim V. Ram
Warn/n, (1975) 3 SCC 398 1975 SLC (00 24 p. 26 i975 Cri U 577; Akalu Ahir v.
Rantdea Ram, (1973) 2 SC.0 583: 1973 SCC (('FI) 903 at pp. 906, 907: 1973 Cri U
1404: Changanti Kotaiah v. (ogioni Vettkateswara Rao, (1971)1 SCC 249 1973
SC( (Cri) 801 at P: 8148:i1973 Cri U 978: Fakir Oland v, Kornai Prosad, (19(4) 2 Cri
Li :tan v N ametrakpant Mangi Singh, 1 37, v " 988 Cri Li 1438 tGau HC). . tntan
Smgh, 0986)3 SCC 444: 1986 SCC (Cri 14/. 1986 Cri Li 1603, - 73 at p. 75 (SC).
Also sec

Jurisdiction Of The High Court As A Revisional Power

The High Courts power to jurisdiction to act as a revisional court has to be deduced
from all the provisions in section 397-401 read together. The points on which they
are read together are as follows:
1.

The High Court my it self call for the record of an inferior court under section
397 either on the application of a party aggrieved suo moto which is section 401(1).

2.

When the high court has before it on appeal the record of a criminal
proceeding, it may exercise its power of revision under section 401 in respect of a
matter in regard to which it could have otherwise exercised its power of revision even
where the appeal is incomplete. It should be noted that where in a proceeding on
appeal the court proposes to exercise its revisional powers; its intention to that effect
should be made clear in its orders. If however high court proceeds in exercise of its
power as an appellant court, assuming that the appeal is complete and subsequently
it is discovered that appeal was incompetent and that accordingly the order passed
by the high court was void, the order cannot be saved by treating it as having been
passed by the High Court as a court of revision.

3.

The High Court may also exercise its revisional powers where the defect in
the record of a case before an inferior court comes to its knowledge in any other
manner.

Difference Between The Appellant And Revisional Jurisdiction Of The

High Court:
1.

Though sub section (1) of the section 401 of the criminal procedure code
extends all the appellate powers of the High Court to its revisional jurisdiction, it is
subject to exceptions specified in the other sub-section as a result of which the
following points of distinction should be noted.

1.

in appeal, the High Court can convert an acquittal into a convention

and vice versa, but in revision it cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction that is in Section 401(3).

2.

The power of High Court in appeal is not so wide as that in revision. In

exercising its revisional jurisdiction the High Court may even cure any irregularity or
impropriety Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code that is not so in appeal. But
normally, the High Court would not interfere, in reyision unless there is a glaring
defect in the procedure or a manifest error in law, which has resulted in flagrant
miscarriage of justice.

3.

In disposing of a criminal appeal against conviction, the court will

interfere, unless it is satisfied as to the guilt of the accused, while in revision the High
Court will not interfere unless the conscience of the court is aroused to such an
extent as to compel it to expressly say that the applicant ought not to have been
convicted on the evidenced.

4.

The High Court cannot dismiss an appeal without affording the

appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard. But in revision the
High Court is not bound to hear the applicant or his pleader save while enhancing
any sentence, in which case the accused shall be heard as of right, this is in section
401(2) or criminal procedure code.

5.

There is no provision for abatement of revision proceeding as for

appeal.

Section 401 And Article 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India:
In an appropriate case, it may be permissible for High Court to protect a person from
illegal prosecution, by granting an appropriate write such as writ of mandamus.
Section 401 of Cr.P.C and Article 227 grants the extraordinary constitutional power to
the High Court under Article 227 which cannot be taken away by anything in section
397, 401 of the Cr.P.C. Of course the High Court can interfere under Article 227 only
if the conditions necessary for application of that provision exist such as where the
order in question is without jurisdiction or founded on no evidence. But Art. 227
cannot be used to interfere with a matter in the discretion of the inferior Court.

Who May Apply For Revision

There is a consensus of opinion that unless the High Court acts Suo Moto, it can be
moved to exercise its power of revision only when an aggrieved party makes an
application under section 397(1) to call for the records, such aggrieved party may be
the accused himself or the complainant or some other person. When a case has
been instituted on police report, a private party cannot, therefore, make such
application and move the High Court to call for the records and to exercise its power
under section 401, in revision unless there are exceptional circumstances. But when
the records come up before the High Court on appeal against conviction by the
accused, the High court entertained a revision petition for enhancement of the
sentence filed by a brother of the deceased and enhanced the sentence, after
issuing notice upon the accused. The Supreme Court upheld this order as a suo
motu exercise of its revisional power, for the purpose of which anybody could draw
the attention of the High Court to the illegality or irregularity in the order or sentence.
In short, the application of a person who has no locus standi may be treated as

information to induce the High Court to precede suo motu in a present case. 1)
Section 401(4) says that when a party is entitled to appeal against an order, it is not
entitled to apply in revision without first appealing against such order. Hence, where
a state government has failed to appeal against an order or acquittal, it cannot move
in revision against that order. Under sub section (4) of section 378, a complainant is
entitled to appeal if (a) the case has not been instituted on his complaint and (b) if
the High Court grants him special leave to file such appeal. Hence, in such a case,
the complainant cannot apply for revision without first seeking the special leave to
appeal from the High Court. The complainant, in cases other than the above, or even
a third party, may apply for revision, provided only there are exceptional grounds
such as: Absence of jurisdiction, Miscarriage of Justice.

Whether The High Court Can Exercise Its Power Of Revision Where
An Appeal Is Pending Against The Impugned Order Before The
Sessions Court.
The usual rule of practice is that the High Court would not excise its revisional power
under section 401, in a case where the aggrieved party has appealed against the
judgment or order before an inferior court, until that appeal is disposed of. But there
may be exceptional cases where the ends of justice required that appeal itself be
heard by the High Court and n such a case, it is open to the High Court to call for the
records of the appeal under its revisional power, hear and dismiss the appeal and
thereafter enhance the sentence under its revisional power.

Powers Of The Court To Revision

Powers Of A Court In Revision
The revisional powers of a High Court are very wide. Section 397 which is linked with
Sec. 401 indicates the circumstance in which such powers can be exercised. Such
powers are intended to be used by the High Court to decide all questions as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed by an inferior criminal court and even as to the regularity of any proceeding
of any inferior court. The object of conferring such powers on the High Court is to
clothe the highest court in a state with a jurisdiction of general supervision and
superintendence in order to correct grave failure or miscarriage of justice arising
from erroneous or defective orders. Section 401(1) confers on the High Court all the
powers of the appellate court as mentioned in Ss 386, 389 390 and 391. It also
empowers the High Court to direct tender of pardon to the accused person as
contemplated by S.307. Apart from these powers the court has given additional
powers in respect of specific cases falling under S. 106(4), 356(4), 357(4).etc. Any
order passed in any proceedings under the Code, except when it is specifically
barred such as an interlocutory order, is revisable by the High Court under S.401.
The revisional powers under 397 and 401 are entirely discretionary. There is no
vested right of revision in the same sense in which there is vested right of appeal.
These sections do not create any right in the litigant, but only conserve the powers of
the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of

criminal jurisprudence and that subordinate criminal courts do not exceed their
jurisdiction, or abuse the powers vested in them by the Code.

Who Can Invoke Revisional Jurisdiction:

The High Court can exercise its powers suo moto or on any petition of any aggrieved
party or even on the application of any person. However, there are 2 limitations:

In a case where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any

person before the Sessions Judge, no further proceeding by way of petition shall be
entertained by the High Court.

In a case where under this Code an appeal lies but no appeal is brought, then
according to sub-section 4 of S.401, no way of revision shall be entertained at the
instance of the party who could have pleaded. This rule is based on sound policy
that a person who has not exhausted his remedies by law should not normally be
allowed to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
A private party has no locus standi in a case instituted on a police report and has
right to demand an adjudication on an application in revision. He cannot claim locus
standi even if the Public Prosecutor permits him to seek revision. But it cannot be
said that a private party has no right to bring to the notice of the Sessions Judge or
the High Court any illegality committed by the subordinate court. There may be
exceptional circumstances I which, on a revision application filed by a private party,
revisional jurisdiction may appropriately be exercised. However, while dealing with
such a revision application it would not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that
court's jurisdiction has been invoked by a private party and that the criminal law is
not to be used as an instrument wreaking private vengeance by an aggrieved party
against the person who according to that party has caused injury to it. Keeping this
fact in view if the court finds that there is some glaring defect in the procedure or
there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been flagrant
miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction should be exercised. In a case, while the
appeal was pending in the Sessions Court a revision application was filed in the HC
by the complainant ho also prayed for transferring the appeal from the Sessions to
the High Court to be heard along with the revisions. The court rejected the prayer for
the transfer and ruled that the criminal revision case should remain pending until the
disposal of the appeal by the Sessions Court to enable the complainant to pursue
the same after the appeals are disposed of by the Sessions Court.

How The Powers Are Exercised:

The exercise of jurisdiction under S.401 is discretionary and such powers are to be
used only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or
there is manifest on point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. The exercise of revisional power is justified only to set right
grave injustice not merely to rectify every error however inconsequential. Merely
because the lower court has taken a wrong view of law or misapprehended the
evidence on the record cannot by itself justify the interference or revision unless it
has also resulted in grave injustice? It is no doubt not possible nor practicable to lay

down any rigid test of uniform application and the matter has to be left to the sound
judicial discretion of the HC in each case to determine if it should exercise it
extraordinary power of revision to set right injustice. Ordinarily the HC court will not
interfere; but in a case where there has been gross injustice, or where evidence has
been overlooked or not considered in its true perspective, the HC must interfere.
While exercising the power of revision, the HC has to work I conformity with two
statutory limitations:

The powers of revision shall not be exercised in any interlocutory order;

The court having exercised such power shall not have the power to convert a
finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
Section 401(1) provides that in the exercise or revisional jurisdiction the HC may
exercise any of he powers of the court of appeal. As the court of appeal is entitled
under 386(a) to reverse an order of acquittal or to direct a retrial, the HC in the
exercise of its revisional powers would also be entitled to record a conviction by
reversing the order of the acquittal.
But 401(3) prohibit the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction. This places limitations on the power of the HC to set aside a finding of
acquittal in the revision, particularly when the state had not thought fit to appeal to
the HC against the finding of the acquittal and where the HC is exercising the
revisional jurisdiction at the instance of private parties. In a number of decisions, the
Supreme Court has held that the revisional power of the HC to set aside the order of
the acquittal at the instance of private parties should be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances where there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a
manifest error on the point of law.
It would follow from the above that where an acquittal is based on the compounding
an offence and the compounding is invalid under the law, the acquittal would be
liable to be set aside by the HC in the exercise of such jurisdiction.
In a case, the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court was reversed and the
accused was convicted by the HC, acting on the letter from a prosecution witness, by
treating it is a criminal revision petition. The SC disapproved of the HC's action in the
following words:
No doubt the HC in exercise of its revisional powers can set aside an order of
acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional circumstance enumerated above,
but it cannot convert an order acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course
left is to order for a retrial.

Case Laws
In this chapter researcher would like to discuss some of the case laws which deals
with the Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Connected herewith is the question about the options open to the High Court in case
a judgment of acquittal, when examined within the parameters laid down by
D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla (Supra), is found to call for interference. The High Court
cannot convert the acquittal into conviction. The earlier Code of 1898 also gave
similar powers to the High Court by Section 439. The earlier Code and the present
one by Sections 439(4) and 401(3) respectively have imposed a restriction by
enacting that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to convert an acquittal
into conviction:
Sec. 401 High Court's powers of revision.
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding
of acquittal into one of conviction.

In the case of Bansi Lal and Othres v. Laxman Singh : - The five appellants were
tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on a charge of murder under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After a very detailed
consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge acquitted the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt. The respondent
herein, who is a son of the deceased victim of the murder preferred a criminal
revision petition before the High Court of Delhi under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C.
challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed that revision petition, set aside the
acquittal of the appellants and remitted the case to the trial Court for retrial.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court the appellants have come up to
this Court with this appeal and the main contention raised by them is that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court has transgressed the bounds of his revisional
jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and setting aside their acquittal.
In the case of Jaspreet Singh v. A.P Singh:- This revision petition under Sections
397/401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, New Delhi, dated 18.2.2005, sitting as a Court of appeal, thereby dismissing
the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against his conviction of sentence.
The petitioner herein was prosecuted by the DRI for the offence punishable under
Sections 132/135(1) (a) of the Customs Act (for short the Act) and after trial was
convicted for the said offences and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 132 of the Act or in
default of payment of fine to undergo one and a half month's simple imprisonment.
The petitioner was further sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of
one and a half months. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant
preferred an appeal but without success, the learned appellate Court upholding the
conviction as well as the sentence. Even the plea for reduction/modification of
sentence did not find favour with the appellate Court.
Though in the body of the revision petition, the petitioner sought to assail both
conviction and sentence as illegal and unwarranted, but during the course of hearing
of the petition, Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that he
did not wish to press the grounds on which conviction of the petitioner has been
challenged. Accordingly, he confined his submissions only so far as it relates to the
quantum of sentence as awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court and
upheld by the appellate Court.
In the case of Lalsai Khunte v. Nirmal Sinha and Ors the Supreme Court of India has
observed that: - The convict had earned a remission and the period of imprisonment
reduced by the period of remission would have had the effect of removing
disqualification as the period of actual imprisonment would have been reduced to a
period of less than two years. The Constitution Bench held that the remission of
sentence under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (old) and his release
from jail before two years of actual imprisonment would not reduce the sentence to
one of a period of less than two years and save him from incurring the
disqualification.

An order of remission thus does not in any way interfere with the order of the court; it
affects only the execution of the sentence passed by the court and free the convicted
person from his liability to undergo the full term of imprisonment inflicted by the court,
though the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court still stands as it
was. The Page 1084 power to grant remission is executive power and cannot have
the effect which the order of an appellate or revisional court would have of reducing
the sentence passed by the trial court and substituting in its place the reduced
sentence adjudged by the appellate or revisional court.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that the Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all
the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in
Section 410 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is provision enabling the High Court to
exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of
superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High
Court or the Session Court. Section 397 CrPC confers power on the High Court or
Sessions Court, as the case may be, "for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as
to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed and as to regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court." It is for the
above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all
appellate powers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of Appellate Court on the
Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in
Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional
power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power.

Bibliography
Books Referred
K.N. Candrasekharan Pillai (rev.), R.V. Kelkar, Lectures on Criminal Procedure, 4th
ed. 2006, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.
P. Sarkar and P.M. Bakshi (rev.), S.C. Sarkar, The Law of Criminal Procedure, 7th
ed. 1996, rep. 2001, India Law House, New Delhi.
Y.V.Chandrachud (rev.), Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure,
16th ed. 2002, rep. 2003, Wadhwa & Co. Nagpur, New Delhi.

Read more: High courts power of revision | Law

Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/essays/high-courts-powerof-revision.php#ixzz2ysdNmA9i
Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook

Chapter 30 Reference And Revision

Section 395 Reference to High Court
1.

Where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a

question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision
contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is
necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance,
Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by
the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the
Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefore, and

refer the same for the decision of the High Court.

Explanation In this section, Regulation means any Regulation as defined in
the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), or in the General Clauses Act of a
State.
2.
A Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate may, if it or he thinks fit in
any case pending before it or him to which the provisions of Sub-Section (1) do
not apply, refer for the decision of the High Court any question of law arising in
the hearing of such case.
3.
Any Court making a reference to the High Court under Sub-Section (1) or
Sub-Section (2) may, pending the decision of the High Court thereon, either
commit the accused to jail or release him on bail to appear when called upon.

Section 396 Disposal of case according to decision of

High Court
1.

When a question has been so referred, the High Court shall pass such
order thereon as it thinks fit, and shall cause a copy of such order to be sent to
the Court by which the reference was made, which shall dispose of the case
conformably to the said order.
2.
The High Court may direct by whom the costs of such reference shall be
paid.

Section 397 Calling for records to exercise powers of

revision

1.

The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record
of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as
to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling
for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended,
and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own
bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether

exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the
Sessions Judge for the purposes of this Sub-Section and of section 398.
2.
The powers of revision conferred by Sub-Section (1) shall not be exercised
in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other
proceeding.
3.
If an application under this section has been made by any person either to
the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same
person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Section 398 Power to order inquiry

On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court
or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself

or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief

Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate
to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed
under section 203 of Sub-Section (4) of section 204 or into the case of any
person accused of an offence who has been discharged:
Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for
inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such
person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction
should not be made.

Section 399 Sessions Judges powers of revision

1.

In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by
himself the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be
exercised by the High Court under Sub-Section (1) of section 401.
2.
Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions
Judge under Sub-Section (1), the provisions of Sub-Sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of
section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in
the said subsections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the
Sessions Judge.
3.
Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person
before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation
to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the
instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other
Court.

Section 400 Power of Additional Sessions Judge

An Additional Sessions Judge shall have and may exercise all the powers
of a Sessions Judge under this Chapter in respect of any case which may
be transferred to him by or under any general or special order of the
Sessions Judge.

Section 401 High Courts powers of revision

1.

In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by
itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its
discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections
386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the
Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case
shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
2.
No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused
or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own defence.

3.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to

convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
4.
Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no
proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party
who could have appealed.
5.
Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has
been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that
such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto
and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may
treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same
accordingly.

Section 402 Power of High Court to withdraw or transfer

revision cases
1.

Whenever one or more persons convicted at the same trial makes or make
application to a High Court for revision and any other person convicted at the
same trial makes an application to the Sessions Judge for revision, the High Court
shall decide, having regard to the general convenience of the parties and the
importance of the question involved. Which of the two Courts should finally
dispose of the applications for revision and when the High Court decides that all
the application for revision should be disposed of by itself, the High Court shall
direct that the applications for revision pending before the Sessions Judge be
transferred to itself and where the High Court decides that it is not necessary for
it to dispose of the applications for revision, it shall direct that the applications
for revision made to it be transferred to the Sessions Judge.
2.
Whenever any application for revision is transferred to the High Court, that
Court shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before itself.
3.
Whenever any application for revision is transferred to the Sessions Judge,
that Judge shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before
himself.
4.
Where an application for revision is transferred by the High Court to the
Sessions Judge, no further application for revision shall lie to the High Court or to
the any other Court at the instance of the person or persons whose applications
for revision have been disposed of by the Sessions Judge.

Section 403 Option of Court to hear parties

Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code no party has any right
to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court exercising its
powers of revision; but the Court may, if it thinks fit, when exercising such
powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader.

Section 404 Statement by Metropolitan Magistrate of

grounds of his decision to be considered by High Court
When the record of any trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate is called for
by the High Court or Court of Session under section 397, the Magistrate
may submit with the record a statement setting forth the grounds of his
decision or order and any facts which he thinks material to the issue; and
the Court shall consider such statement before overruling or setting aside
the said decision or order.

Section 405 High Courts order to be certified to lower

Court
When a case is revised under this Chapter by the High Court or a Sessions
Judge, it or he shall, in the manner provided by section 388, certify its
decision or order to the Court by which the finding sentence or order
revised was recorded or passed, and the Court to which the decision or
order is so certified shall thereupon make such orders as are conformable
to the decision so certified; and, if necessary, the record shall be amended
in accordance therewith.