Questions and answers on law (Part 85)

Q 1:- What is the meaning of legality Propriety and Correctness ? explain it with reference to indian law?

Ans:  In Indian procedural law, the expressions “legality, propriety and correctness” are used mainly to describe the grounds and limits of revisional/supervisory jurisdiction—i.e., when a higher court can interfere with an order of a subordinate court.

Where these words appear

1. Criminal revision (CrPC): Section 397(1) of CRPC {S 438 BNSS} empowers the High Court/Sessions Judge to call for the record to satisfy itself about the “correctness, legality or propriety” of any finding/sentence/order (and regularity of proceedings).

Print Page

Sessions Judge’s Power to Examine Electronic Evidence in CrPC 156(3) Revision: Clarification from Bombay HC

 Background and Case Snapshot

In a pivotal judgment delivered on June 5th, 2023, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) addressed a recurring procedural question confronting criminal practitioners and judges: Can a Sessions Court, during revision proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC, view evidence (specifically electronic evidence like a CD) that is not yet

“admissible” under the Indian Evidence Act? The controversy stemmed from Sudhir and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 76 of 2023).

Print Page

Supreme Court: Order of discharge of accused should be stayed in exceptional cases

 An order staying the order of discharge is a very drastic order which has the effect of curtailing or taking away the liberty granted to the Accused by the discharge order. As a result of the order staying the order of discharge, the order of discharge ceases to operate, and the Sessions Court can proceed to frame charges against the Accused and try him further. Thus, the stay of the discharge order has a grave consequence of depriving an Accused of the liberty granted under the discharge order. The grant of stay to the order of discharge amounts to the grant of final relief, as the trial can proceed against him. An interim order can be granted pending disposal of the main case only if the interim order is in the aid of final relief sought in the main case. If the discharge order is ultimately set aside by grant of final relief in the revision, the Accused has to face the trial. Therefore, the order staying the order of discharge by way of interim relief cannot be said to be in the aid of final relief. {Para 13}

14. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional Court can take the extreme step of staying that order. However, such an order should be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Accused. Moreover, while granting the stay, the Court must mould the relief so that the trial does not proceed against the discharged Accused. If the trial against a discharged Accused proceeds, even before the revision application against an order of discharge is decided, the final outcome of the revision will become fait accompli.

Ratio Decidendi:

It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional Court can take the extreme step of staying that order.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 536-537 of 2025

Decided On: 28.02.2025

Sudershan Singh Wazir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 281,MANU/SC/0293/2025

Print Page

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.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Revision Petition Before Sessions Court Against Order Passed By Magistrate U/S 143A NI Act Maintainable U/S.397 CrPC

All these judgments considered the purport of an application under Section 143A of the Act and its closure and would hold that revision before the Court of Sessions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable as an order on the application filed under Section 143A of the Act is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order. Therefore, I answer the issue that has arisen for consideration holding that an order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act, is not interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, as the application is filed, and the application is closed, under the said provision, determining the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and revision petition before the Court of Sessions on the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it the complainant or the accused to approach.{Para 11}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Criminal Petition No. 5944 of 2023

Decided On: 28.07.2023

Sanjay P.S. Vs. Abhishek M.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J.

Citation:  MANU/KA/1977/2023.

Print Page

Whether High Court under revisional jurisdiction should suspend the sentence of accused without his surrender or arrest?

15. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows:

16. Though the High Court would not be justified in refusing to entertain the revision in the absence of the Rules for regulating listing of the revisions without surrender, it has powers to simultaneously ensure compliance with the provisions of Sections 353(5), 353(6) and Section 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under its inherent powers contained in Section 482 and in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. P.C., and may suspend the sentence without the surrender or arrest of the accused, in its discretion.

 In the High Court of Bombay( Aurangabad Bench)

(Before Mangesh S. Patil and S.G. Chapalgaonkar, JJ.)

Criminal Revision Application No. 301 of 2022

Ikba and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others 

Decided on January 5, 2024, 

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 43.

Print Page

Whether criminal revision is maintainable against the order passed by the Magistrate under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act?

 Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enumerates the classes of Criminal Courts and they include Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Metropolitan Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class. Section 12(3)(b), Cr.P.C. shows that a Chief Judicial Magistrate exercises general control over all Magistrates. Section 10(1) Cr.P.C. provides that all Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction. Sub-section (1) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. lays down that the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any. inferior Criminal Court constituted 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 regularity of proceedings of any such inferior Court. The explanation to this sub-section provides that 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 purpose of this sub-section and of Section 398. In view of Section 6 of Cr.P.C. all Judicial Magistrates (First Class or Second Class), Metropolitan Magistrates and Executive Magistrates are Criminal Courts. By virtue of the explanation of Sub-section (1) of Section 397, Cr.P.C, all Magistrates shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions judge. It, therefore, follows that all Magistrates are inferior Criminal Courts and, consequently, the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by them or the regularity of any proceedings of such Magistrates can be examined by the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Sub-section (1) of Section 397. The power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. is in very wide terms. There is nothing to indicate that any order passed by a Magistrate under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, would not fall within the purview of Sub-section (1) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. As mentioned earlier, the Legislature has not made any such provision in the Act which may indicate that any finality is attached to the orders passed by the Magistrate. Therefore, the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed or proceedings conducted by a Magistrate under the Act can be examined by the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Sub-section (1) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken in Salim v. Judicial Magistrate, Haridwr 1996 JIC 30, that a revision does not lie against an order passed by a Magistrate under the Act does not lay down correct law. {Para 9}

10. Our answer to the question referred by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, as follows :

'Against an order passed by a Magistrate under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a revision is maintainable before the Sessions Judge under Section 397, Cr.P.C.'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Criminal Revision No. 1430 of 1999

Decided On: 24.05.2002

Saman Ismail Vs. Rafiq Ahmad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.P. Mathur and R.P. Misra, JJ.

Author: G.P. Mathur, J.

Citation: 2002 Cri L J 3648 (All) (DB),MANU/UP/1313/2002.

Print Page

Whether quashing of prosecution is not permissible if revisional jurisdiction is available?

 In our considered view any attempt to explain the law further as regards the issue
relating to inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
unwarranted. We would simply reiterate that Section 482 begins with a
non-obstante clause to state: “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.” A fortiori, there
can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the
words of Krishna Iyer, J. “abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary
situation excites the court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing
more.” We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Cr.P.C.
is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit
the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty
interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 3314 of 2009]
Prabhu Chawla
V
State of Rajasthan & Anr
Citation: 2016 SCCONLINESC905

Print Page