Delhi HC: What basic principles the court should follow while deciding criminal revision?
It is a settled position of law that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of the BNSS (erstwhile 397 of the CrPC) is to be exercised sparingly and only on specific grounds, that is, when the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous; there is non-compliance with the provisions of law; the finding recorded is based on no evidence or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These grounds are indicative and not exhaustive, emphasising the need for a well-founded error to justify interference. Fundamentally, the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, is not to re-appreciate evidence or to arrive at a different conclusion, even if a different view is possible. {Para 66}
- The Supreme Court has time and again laid down the limitations and contours of revisional jurisdiction in a catena of Judgments, just to note a few. In Amit Kapoor (supra) it was held as under:
” 11. Before examining the merits of the present case, we must advert to the discussion as to the ambit and scope of the power which the courts including the High Court can exercise under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code.
- Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges 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. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
- The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused”
- In State of Kerala vs Puttumana Illath Jathavedan ; MANU/SC/0100/1999 : 1999:INSC:57 : (1999) 2 SCC 452 the Supreme Court, while examining the scope of revisional jurisdiction, held as under:-
“5. Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Crl.Rev.P. 163/2025 and Crl.M.B. 904/2025
Decided On: 29.07.2025
Medha Patkar Vs. V.K. Saxena
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
Shalinder Kaur, J.
Citation: 2025 DHC 6199, MANU/DE/5463/2025