CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

APPEAL REVISION & REVIEW

SUBMITTED BY: ROUNAK VIRMANI

A3221517318
BBA LL. B(H)
SECTION – E
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 scrutinise the decisions of lower courts in order to obviate the scope of
miscarriage of justice. Realizing this aspect, there are certain provisions which
have been included in the criminal procedure on appeal against a judgment or order
of criminal courts. CrPC contains elaborate provisions on appeals starting from
Section 372 to Section 394.

Howbeit, 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 CrPC.
Section 397 to Section 405 include the powers of revision granted to the higher
courts, and the procedure to exercise these powers. It must be noted that these
powers are extensive as well as discretionary by their very nature.

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. In fact, the
courts have many times discussed the difference between an appeal and a revision.
In the case of Hari Shankar vs Rao Ghari Chowdhury[1], the Supreme Court held
that “the distinction between an appeal and a revision is a real one. 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.”
 APPEAL

The word “appeal” has not been defined in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
(hereinafter CrPC), however, it can be described as the judicial examination of a
decision, given by a lower court, by a higher court. The Merriam-Webster
dictionary defines appeal as “a legal proceeding by which a case is brought before
a higher court for review of the decision of a lower court”.

It needs to be pointed out that except for the statutory provisions laid down by
CrPC or any other law which is in force, an appeal cannot lie from any judgment or
an order of a criminal court. Thus, there is no vested right to appeal as such as even
the first appeal will be subjected to statutory limitations. The justification behind
this principle is that the courts which try a case are competent enough with the
presumption that the trial has been conducted fairly. However, as per the provison,
the victim has a right to appeal against any order passed by the Court under special
circumstances comprising of a judgment of acquittal, conviction for lesser offence
or inadequate compensation.

In the case of Satya Pal Sigh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the father of the deceased has a locus standi to present an appeal to
the High Court under the proviso of Section 372, as he falls within the definition of
“victim”, to question the correctness of judgment and order of an acquittal of
accused.

Generally, same sets of rules and procedures are employed to govern the appeals in
the Sessions Courts and High Courts (highest court of appeal in a state and enjoys
more powers in matters where appeal is permissible). The highest court of appeal
in the country is the Supreme Court and hence, it enjoys the most extensive
discretionary and plenary powers in the cases of appeals. Its powers are largely
governed by the provisions laid down in CrPC, Indian Constitution, and the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), 1970.

The law provides a person who has been convicted of a crime to appeal to the
Supreme Court or the High Court or the Sessions Court as per the
circumstances. In the case of Arun Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the
Honourable Supreme Court held that if the High Court found that the view taken
by the Sessions Judge to acquit the appellants was manifestly wrong, moreover, it
even led to miscarriage of justice, therefore, the High Court was correct in setting
aside this acquittal and convicting them.

The State Government has been empowered to direct the Public Prosecutor to
appeal against the sentence on the grounds of inadequacy to either the sessions
court or the High Court, however in only those cases where the trial for conviction
has not been held by the High Court. This shows that this right to appeal against
sentences on the grounds of inadequacy has not been granted to the victims or the
complainants or any other person. Moreover, it is mandatory for the Court to give
the accused a reasonable opportunity to show cause against any enhancement of
the sentence in the interest of justice. The accused has the right to plead for his
acquittal or a reduction in the sentence while showing cause.

Similarly, the District Magistrate, and the State Government have the powers to
direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal in case of an acquittal to Court of
Sessions, and the High Court, respectively, subject to certain conditions. A two-
Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Satya Pal Singh vs
State of Madhya Pradesh that the victim cannot file an appeal against an order of
acquittal without obtaining the leave of the High Court.

The accused has been given the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against the
judgment of the High Court if the High Court has reversed an order of his acquittal
on appeal by convicting him, thereby, sentencing him to imprisonment for life or
for ten years or more, or to death. Understanding the relevance of a criminal appeal
being made to the Supreme Court, the same law has also been laid down in Article
134(1) of the Indian Constitution under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
1970, has also been passed by the legislature in consonance with Article 134(2) of
the Indian Constitution to confer additional powers on the Supreme Court to
entertain and hear appeals from the High Court under certain conditions.

A similar right to appeal has been granted to one or all accused persons if more
than one persons have been convicted in a trial and such order has been passed by
the court.
However, there are certain circumstances under which no appeal shall lie. These
provisions have been laid down under Section 265G, Section 375 and Section
376 of the CrPC.

As to the finality of the judgments and orders passed on appeal, CrPC makes them
final except in some cases.This shows how paramount importance is given to
appeals.

REVISION

The word “revision” has not been defined in CrPC, however, as per Section 397 of
CrPC, the High Court or any Sessions Judge have been empowered to call for and
examine the records of any proceeding satisfy oneself:

1. as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,

whether recorded or passed, and

2. 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.

The Honourable 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 same Court, further explaining 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. 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 CrPC, 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:

1. An accused is to be given due opportunity to hear him and on order cannot

be passed unless this is followed.

2. 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.

3. 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 CrPC.

The difference between the powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court being
that the Sessions Judge can only exercise revisional powers which he has called for
by himself, 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

It can thus be clearly seen that through the process of appeals, a person gets an
opportunity to get any legal, or factual error in an order or judgment corrected.
Nevertheless, appeals against any judgment, or order, or sentence of a criminal
court can only be preferred when it has been specifically provided in the statutes.
Thus, the right to appeal can only be exercised within the limits laid down by CrPC
or any other law which is in force and hence, this is a constricted right. As far as
the decision to appeal is considered, it is discretionary except in cases when an
accused person has been sentenced to death by Sessions Court. Not only this, there
are certain cases as well in which appeal is not allowed at all, in fact the judgment,
or order, or sentence delivered by the criminal court will attain finality.

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.