What legal principles the session judge should follow while deciding criminal revision?

Key Legal Principles for Session Judges in Criminal Revision

1. Scope and Nature of Revisional Jurisdiction

• Sessions Judges derive their revisional powers primarily from Sections 397 to 401 of the CrPC. These allow a review of records of inferior criminal courts for legality, propriety, or correctness of any finding, sentence, or order.

• The revisional jurisdiction is meant to correct manifest errors, jurisdictional mistakes, or violations of law, not to conduct a full-fledged re-hearing on facts. It is to be used sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice.

2. Limitations on Revisional Powers

• The power is not limitless. For example, a Sessions Judge (as with the High Court) cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. This is explicitly barred under Section 401(3) CrPC.

• Revisional powers cannot be used to quash proceedings entirely—that power lies solely with the High Court under Section 482.

• If an appeal lies and is not filed, revision cannot be generally entertained by the revisional court (Section 401(4)).

3. Principles of Natural Justice

• No revisional order should prejudice the accused or any party without giving them an opportunity to be heard, in person or through counsel.

• Courts must adhere to fairness and impartiality, ensuring decisions are made according to law and evidence.

4. Grounds for Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction

A Sessions Judge should invoke revisional powers on grounds such as:

• Wrongful exclusion of crucial evidence by a lower court.

• Decision based on inadmissible evidence.

• Lack of jurisdiction by the trial court.

• Overlooking of material evidence or reliance on irrelevant evidence by lower courts.

• Orders based on illegal compounding of offences.

5. Concurrent Revisional Powers

• Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court have concurrent revisional powers over subordinate courts. However, once a Sessions Judge has decided a revision, the same issue cannot be raised again before the High Court by the same party.

Landmark Judgments Explaining These Principles

Supreme Court

Mahabir v. State of Haryana (2025)

• Reiterated that a revisional court cannot convert an acquittal into conviction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the only course open in truly exceptional cases is to order a retrial, not direct conviction under revision.

Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 650

• Held that the revisional court has no authority to re-appreciate evidence and convert acquittal into conviction, stressing the limited powers under Section 401(3).

Other Principles from Supreme Court:

• Outlined grounds for revision: wrongful exclusion of evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, lack of jurisdiction, or material legal errors.

Bombay High Court

Ramgopal Ganpatrani Ruia v. State of Bombay

• Affirmed that Session Judges have co-extensive revisional powers with High Courts under Section 399, but clarified that these do not extend to converting an acquittal to conviction or quashing proceedings entirely.

Puvvula Abbulu v. The State (1975)

• Clarified that the Sessions Judge, in revision, cannot exercise appellate powers in cases where an appeal would lie to the High Court; powers must be interpreted within statutory limits.

• The phrase "No illegality or infirmity is found in the order passed by the JMFC requiring interference by this Court under Section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code" encapsulates an important principle guiding the Sessions Judge's revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).

  Meaning of "No Illegality or Infirmity"

  • Illegality: Refers to any act or decision by the JMFC that is contrary to law, whether substantive or procedural, such as exceeding jurisdiction, failure to follow mandatory procedural safeguards, or violation of statutory provisions.

  • Infirmity: Indicates a defect, error, or flaw in the reasoning, approach, or exercise of discretion by the JMFC. This could include ignoring material facts, acting arbitrarily, or issuing a reasonless order.

  Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 399 CrPC

  • Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers the Sessions Judge to call for the record of any case pending before or decided by any Magistrate subordinate to the Court of Sessions and to exercise power of revision.

  • This power includes correcting jurisdictional errors or legal mistakes in interlocutory or final orders passed by the Magistrate.

  • Importantly, the revisional power is supervisory and is not appellate. It is not intended to re-try facts or to substitute the Sessions Judge’s subjective satisfaction in place of the JMFC’s well-reasoned order.

  Grounds for Interference

  The Sessions Judge may interfere under Section 399 if:

  • The JMFC’s order is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious.

  • There is a clear error in law, such as misinterpreting or misapplying the provisions of the CrPC or other relevant laws.

  • The JMFC acted in excess of jurisdiction.

  • The JMFC failed to consider material evidence or facts, thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice.

  • The order is passed without jurisdiction or in violation of fundamental principles of natural justice.

  When No Interference is Warranted

  If after examining all these aspects, the Sessions Judge finds:

  • The JMFC applied due judicial mind,

  • The order is well-reasoned, balanced, and based on material evidence,

  • The order conforms to law and procedure,

  • There is no procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error,

  then the Sessions Judge must not interfere, respecting the principle of judicial restraint in revisional jurisdiction.

  Practical Significance

  This approach fosters judicial discipline and finality of orders passed by Magistrates, avoids unnecessary judicial interference, and respects the hierarchical judicial structure. It ensures that the Sessions Judge intervenes only when there is a substantial legal or jurisdictional fault, thereby safeguarding the autonomy of subordinate courts and preventing misuse of revision petitions.

  Summary

  Thus, the phrase acknowledges that unless the JMFC’s order is legally flawed or suffers from procedural or jurisdictional errors, the Sessions Judge exercising revisional power under Section 399 CrPC should uphold the JMFC’s decision and decline to interfere. This maintains the proper balance between supervisory review and non-interference in routine judicial decisions of subordinate magistrates.

Conclusion

A Sessions Judge should exercise revisional powers judiciously, intervene only in cases of manifest injustice or illegality, and must not convert acquittals into convictions. The process must strictly observe principles of natural justice and comply with the procedural limitations enshrined in the CrPC and interpreted by landmark Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

Print Page