Supreme Court : Jurisdiction to try case U/S 138 of NI Act is to the court within whose jurisdiction payee's home branch, was situated irrespective of cheque was deposited in any other branch of same bank

What is discernible from the aforesaid exposition is that this Court considered the requirement of "maintaining of the account" implicit in "for collection through an account". In other words, once it is identified that the cheque in question is an account payee cheque, the delivery must be to such branch in which the payee maintains the account as it is this branch of the bank that will receive the funds in the account maintained by the payee, from the drawee bank which will debit the drawer's account to send such amount. However, the necessity of delivery of an account payee cheque to the home branch is only legal and not commercial. It is to address commercial exigencies that the legislature enacted the Explanation to Section 142(2)(a). The deeming fiction in the Explanation ensures that even if a cheque is delivered to a branch other than the home branch for commercial convenience, it shall be considered to have been delivered to the home branch for the legal purpose of determining jurisdiction. {Para 72}

76. It was as clear as a noon day that the jurisdiction to try a complaint filed under Section 138 in respect of a cheque delivered for collection through an account, i.e., an account payee cheque, was vested in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank in which the payee maintains the account, i.e., the payee's home branch, was situated. Therefore, there was no force in the petitioner's argument that as per the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 was vested in the court within whose local bounds the drawee bank was situated where the cheque was dishonoured. This court say so because the enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015 and the introduction of Section 142(2) thereby, being a special legislation, occupies the field over a general procedural legislation viz. Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the MM, Kolkata did not have jurisdiction to try the case.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 1099 of 2025 

Decided On: 28.11.2025

Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. HEG Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1600/2025.

Print Page

Determining "No Legal Evidence" or "Manifestly Inconsistent Evidence": Test, Method, and Its Application by a Session Judge in Criminal Revision Against an Order of Issue of Process

 I. The Nature of the Test

The inquiry into whether there is "no legal evidence" or evidence "manifestly inconsistent" with the accusation is not an exercise in weighing credibility, reliability, or sufficiency of evidence. It is a threshold, objective screening of what is placed on the record — distinct from trial adjudication. The court asks only whether any evidence touching the offence exists at all, or whether the material on record is irreconcilably self-contradictory — never whether existing evidence is convincing or likely to result in conviction.

II. Governing Legal Standard 

Print Page

No Legal Evidence, No Process: A Session Judge's Compass for Deciding Criminal Revisions Against Orders Issuing Process

 The Core Idea in One Line

An order issuing process cannot survive revision if it rests on no admissible, relevant material connecting the accused to the offence — but a Sessions Judge examining that question in revision must look only at the record that was before the Magistrate, and must never reweigh or reappraise the evidence found there.

What Counts as "Legal Evidence"

"Legal evidence" is admissible material — recognized as such under the Evidence Act — bearing a rational, probative connection to an ingredient of the offence charged. It is not simply anything appearing in the case file. Four elements define it:

Print Page

Bombay HC (DB): Judgment passed in Moinoddin s/o.Khodboddin vs.State of Maharashtra is not good law

 In our view, the said proviso carves out

an exception to the general rule which is

provided under Section 353(5) and (6) of the

Code. We, therefore, disagree with the view

expressed by the learned single judge Shri.

N.V. Dabholkar, J. recorded in the case of

Moinoddin s/o.Khodboddin vs. State of

Maharashtra(supra). The said issue is answered

accordingly. {Para 8}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1455 OF 2008

Kanji R. Barot V The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

CORAM : V.M. KANADE & P.D. KODE JJ.

JUNE 12, 2014.

Citation: 2008 BCR CRI 2 881, 2008 BOMCR CRI 2 881

Print Page

Bombay HC: Sessions Judge shall pronounce Judgment in appeal against conviction in presence of the accused except as provided under S 353(6) of CRPC

Thus, taking note of all these pronouncements would make it clear that in fact, there is a duty on the Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Judge (including Additional Sessions Judge) to see that the Judgment in appeal against conviction should be pronounced in presence of the accused (only exception as enumerated in Section 353(6) of the Code) and to take such appellant in custody upon the confirmation of the conviction. The practice of pronouncing Judgments in appeal against conviction in absence of the accused, thereby dismissing the appeal and then directing the trial Court to issue warrant, requires to be deprecated. This is the practice adopted in the present case also and therefore, the point has been considered in detail.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 2743 of 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 323 of 2019

Decided On: 12.06.2020

Fazal Khalil Ahemad Shaikh Vs. Nandkishor Ramnivasji Agrawal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2020 PLR IJ 198 40, 2020 SCC ONLINE BOM 706 ,2021 BC 3 52, 2020 AIR BOM R CRI 2 636, MANU/MH/0637/2020

Print Page

Bombay HC: First appellate Court after confirming the conviction, has no power to suspend the sentence, even if appellant may express his desire to prefer revision against the said conviction

 On reference to operative order of learned Sessions Judge, it is evident that while delivering the judgment on February 3, 2003, learned Sessions Judge ordered the petitioner to surrender his bail bond before the Trial Court- COM Nanded, on February 10, 2003 to undergo remaining part of the sentence. {Para 12}

13. In this context, a reference may be made to a judgment of this High Court (Coram R.M. LODHA, J.) in Dilip v. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0110/1995 : 1996(2)MhLj1004 , and more particularly contents in Paras. 5 and 7 of the judgment. It is evident that lower appellate Court after confirming the conviction, has no power to suspend the sentence, even if appellant may express his desire to prefer revision against the said conviction. The order directing the appellant accused to surrender after a week, in effect, resulted into suspension of sentence, by granting him some time to surrender.

14. Reading proviso to Section 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it may be argued that, it is not mandatory upon the appellate Court to direct the accused to be brought up or required to attend, to hear the judgment delivered because of the words "shall not" incorporated in the proviso. However, this proviso is required to be read in the light of Section 387 read with Sections 353(5) and 353(6). Provisions regarding the judgment, as contained in Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to the judgment of subordinate appellate Court and in Section 387 also the words used are "shall apply". The proviso to Section 387, therefore, shall stand controlled by the provisions contained in Sections 353(5) and 353(6) and, therefore, the subordinate appellate Court will be obliged to secure the presence of accused/appellant before it for pronouncement of judgment except in the cases wherein the judgment is of acquittal or one of fine only. Once the presence of appellant-accused is secured or the purpose of pronouncement of judgment confirming the conviction with substantive sentence, as: observed in the matter of Dilip v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Subordinate Appellate Court would become functus officio and cannot suspend the sentence or grant bail in order to enable the accused to prefer revision before the High Court. The only course available, therefore, would be to execute the order of conviction confirmed by it, leaving the accused to obtain suspension of sentence and bail from the High Court by preferring appropriate revision.

15. On reference to criminal manual of instructions issued by the High Court of Judicature, Appellate Side, Bombay, for the guidance of criminal Courts and officers subordinate to it, the same contains Form XV regarding "warrant to jailor, in the case of a prisoner at first released on bail pending the f disposal of appeal to the Appellate Court, but subsequently rearrested in Court on the dismissal of the appeal or reduction or alteration of sentence, and forwarded to jail to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence". The contents of the warrant clearly indicate that the warrant is to be issued by the Court confirming the conviction and accused appellant cannot be directed to surrender to the trial Court for issuance of conviction warrant.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Cr. R.A. No. 57/2003

Decided On: 14.02.2003

Moinoddin Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Dabholkar, J.

Citation: 2003 LLJ BOM 2 1040, 2003 BLR 2 296, 2003 SCC ONLINE BOM 170, 2003 LLN 2 479, 2003 FLR 98 634,MANU/MH/0394/2003.

Print Page

Can a Sessions Judge Consider the Accused’s Defence While Deciding Revision Against an Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC?

 Revision Is Not a Mini-Trial:

An order under Section 156(3) CrPC often marks the beginning of criminal investigation, but the challenge that follows in revision frequently tempts the revisional court to travel beyond its proper limits. The central question is not whether the accused may be heard at all, but whether the Sessions Judge can evaluate the accused’s defence on merits while deciding a criminal revision against such an order.

The answer, in law, is nuanced but clear. The Sessions Judge may hear the accused where the revisional order is likely to prejudice him, and may examine the legality, propriety, regularity, and jurisdictional soundness of the Magistrate’s order. But the revisional court cannot convert the hearing into a factual adjudication of the defence or a premature evaluation of disputed material.

Print Page

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

Digest of Caselaws on Civil and criminal appeal and revision

 

1) Leading SC and other HC Judgments on Civil appeal, criminal appeal, civil revision, criminal revision and remand of case (Part 1)

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/03/leading-judgments-on-civil-appeal-civil.html

2) Leading SC and other HC Judgments on Civil appeal, criminal appeal, civil revision, criminal revision and remand of case (Part 2).

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/08/leading-sc-and-other-hc-judgments-on.html

3) Notes on Civil appeal

Print Page

Supreme Court:'Bail Is The Rule' Even When Higher Court Orders Arrest Of Accused U/ S.390 CrPC While Considering Challenge To Acquittal/Discharge

 SECTION 390 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 As we have held earlier, in view of Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional Court can exercise power Under Section 390 in a given case. As can be seen from Section 390, when an appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal, the High Court is empowered to issue a warrant directing that the Accused be arrested and brought before it or any sub-ordinate Court. The Court, before which the Accused is brought, may commit him to prison pending disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail. Once an appeal against acquittal is admitted, the status of the person acquitted as an Accused can be said to be restored. That is what is held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu and Ors.   MANU/SC/0191/1976 : 1976:INSC:94 : (1976) 3 SCC 1. The object of Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that if ultimately the order of acquittal is converted into the order of conviction, the Accused must be available for undergoing sentence. The second object of Section 390 is that when an appeal against acquittal is finally heard, the Accused's presence at the hearing can be secured. Therefore, there is a power vested in the High Court to arrest an acquitted Accused and bring him before it or the Trial Court. The object is that the Accused remains under the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with the appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of an Accused. Therefore, as a normal rule, where an order Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is passed, the Accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. This Rule must be applied while exercising power Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the position of the acquitted Accused is on a higher pedestal than an Accused facing trial. When an Accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted Accused, as stated earlier, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of exception can an order committing an acquitted Accused to prison be passed Under Section 390. {Para 18}

19. When a revision application challenging the order of discharge is admitted for hearing, the High Court may exercise power Under Section 390 by directing the person discharged to appear before the Trial Court and by directing the Trial Court to admit him to bail on appropriate terms and conditions. If such an order is passed after the admission of the revision application against the order of discharge, it is a sufficient safeguard for ensuring the presence of the discharged Accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial, if the order of discharge is set aside. If the discharge order is eventually set aside, such an order Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed in an admitted revision application against the discharge order will be in the aid of final relief. As held earlier, while exercising power Under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the normal Rule is that the acquitted Accused should not be committed to custody, and a direction should be issued to admit him to bail. This normal Rule should apply all the more to cases where the challenge is to the order of discharge, as the order of discharge is on a higher pedestal than an order of acquittal.

20. Passing an order Under Section 390 directing the discharged Accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged Accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside.

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.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Criminal Revision Filed By Informant Doesn't Abate On His Death; Other Victims Can Continue It

 Since strict rule of locus does not apply to a revision proceeding, on death of a revisionist, the law of abatement that applies to an appeal does not apply to a revision proceeding, more particularly when revision is not at the instance of an Accused. However, where the revision is at the instance of an Accused/convict, the revisional court may refuse to continue the proceedings on his death, inter alia, where (a) the revisional proceeding emanates from an order passed during trial; or (b) the revisional proceeding is against an order of conviction, or affirmance of conviction. In situation (a) (supra), on death of Accused the trial would abate and so would ancillary proceedings emanating therefrom. In situation (b) (supra), the sentence or fine cannot be executed against a dead person, therefore, in absence of any application from a person seeking leave to pursue the revision, the court may terminate the proceedings as having abated. However, where the revision is at the instance of an informant or a complainant, on his death, the proceedings will not abate and, therefore, revisional court may exercise its discretion and proceed to test the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the court subordinate to it. {Para 17}

18. In so far as substitution in place of the deceased revisionist is concerned, there is no specific provision in the Code for substitution. Therefore, no one can claim substitution as of right. However, what is important is that there is no provision for abatement as well, as is there for an appeal (see Section 394). Hence, once a revision is entertained, in our view, the Court exercising revisional power has discretion to proceed with the revision and test the correctness, legality or propriety of the order under challenge before it, regardless of the death of the person who had invoked the revisional jurisdiction. However, while doing so, the Court may, in its discretion, allow a person to assist it in discharge of its statutory functions provided that person has no conflict of interest. In that context, a victim of the crime would ordinarily be the most suitable person to provide assistance because of his interest in overturning a decision that went against him. Therefore, when revisional powers are invoked by a victim of the crime, and he dies during pendency of the revision, other victims of that crime, who fall within the scope of its definition, as provided in Section 2 (wa) of Code of Criminal Procedure, may be allowed to assist the Court in effectively discharging its statutory function. In that regard, the Court would be well within its jurisdiction in granting leave to such a person to pursue the revision. However, in absence of a provision for substitution, though a person may not have a legal right to claim substitution as a revisionist, there is no legal restriction on revisional court's power in allowing a person to assist the Court in furthering the cause of justice, more particularly, when strict rule of locus does not apply to a criminal revision.

19. In light of the discussion above, the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the revision as having abated on death of the revisionist is held unsustainable in law. More so, because the trial against the Accused-Respondents is pending.

20. As far as rejection of the application of the Appellant to assist the Court as a substitute for the deceased revisionist is concerned, suffice it to say that the original revisionist (i.e., the informant) had alleged that the Accused had set up a fabricated sale deed to stake a false claim to his property. Challenge in the revision was to an order of discharge of the Accused from offences other than cheating. Since on revisionist's death, his son (i.e., the Appellant herein) would inherit an interest in the property, in our view, the Appellant is a victim of the crime and, therefore, has vital interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Hence, in our view, the revisional court could have allowed him to assist the court in the capacity of a victim of the crime.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5589-5590 of 2025 

Decided On: 19.12.2025

Syed Shahnawaz Ali Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1484, MANU/SC/1719/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Proposed Accused Has Right To Be Heard In Revision Filed Against Dismissal Of Petition Under Section 156(3) CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Proposed accused has right to be heard in revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against dismissal of petition under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 HRISHIKESH ROY; J., MANOJ MISRA; J.

 May 12, 2023 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 

 SANTHAKUMARI & ORS. Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Accused can not be convicted only on the basis of disclosure and recovery evidence U/S 27 of Evidence Act

 Be that as it may, it is further to be seen that the conviction of the accused is solely based upon the recovery evidence alone and nothing more. It is a settled law as held by the Honourable Apex Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v State of MP [2023 SCC OnLine SC 984] that a disclosure statement is not so strong a piece of evidence which is sufficient on its own and without anything more, to bring home the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, in the decision in Varkey C.V. v State of Kerala[2024 KHC 7096], this Court has categorically held that mere recovery of the weapon of offence on the basis of the information received from the accused, is of no use if there is no other evidence which could betaken as a connecting link about the use of the said weapon for the commission of the crime. That apart, recently in the decision in Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 901], this Court has again held that while recovery under Section 27 can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction since, it is not a substantive evidence and needs to be corroborated by other evidence. If so, in the light of the afore discussions, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner/2nd accused cannot be sustained. {Para 10}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1438 OF 2017

SELVAN Vs  STATE OF KERALA

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

Citation:  2025:KER:74410.

Dated: 08.10.2025.

Print Page

Mastering District Judge Interviews: Essential Q&A on Pre-Cognizance, Revision, Loan Disputes & reply notice by accused in cheque bounce case

These Interview questions are based on supreme court judgment  Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Ors. Decided On: 25.09.2025,Citation: 2025 INSC 1158, MANU/SC/1336/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

 Pre-cognizance Stage

Q1: What is the Supreme Court's directive regarding issuance of summons at the pre-cognizance stage in complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act?

A1: The Supreme Court has agreed with the Karnataka High Court's view that there is no requirement for the Magistrate to issue summons to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage in complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, recognizing the NI Act as a special enactment. This means cognizance can be taken without waiting for the formal issuance of summons as per Section 223 of BNSS.

Revision Jurisdiction

Print Page

Breaking the Chains of Time: How Courts Navigate Delayed Criminal Revisions

 

When Justice Cannot Wait for Perfect Timing

In the intricate world of criminal law, timing can make the difference between justice served and justice denied. The Limitation Act of 1963 sets clear boundaries, but what happens when these temporal constraints threaten to undermine the very essence of legal remedy? The answer lies in a judicial principle that prioritizes substance over technicality.

The 90-Day Window: Understanding the Framework

Print Page

Supreme Court: Revisional court can not set aside acquittal of accused relying on police or S 164 CRPC statement of witness if that witness has turned hostile to prosecution case

 It appears that the High Court relied upon the police statement of PW-7 recorded Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of his oral testimony before the trial court. {Para 74}

63. Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure bars the use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated therein. The statement made by a witness before the police Under Section 161(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) Code of Criminal Procedure The statements Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose : (i) of contradicting such witness by an Accused Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re- examination of the witness if necessary.

64. The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words 'if duly proved' used in Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can be looked into, but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The statement before the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

80. This Court explained that the trial courts cannot independently use statements made to the police that have not been proven, nor can it base its questions on such statements if they conflict with the witness's testimony in court. The phrase 'if duly proved' in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police cannot be immediately admitted as evidence or examined. They must first be proven through eliciting admissions from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. While statements made to the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, this can only be done after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This requires drawing attention to the specific parts of the statement intended for contradiction. This is what is required Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence.

81. There is a catena of decisions laying down the principle in law that the material elicited as contradiction by use of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is not substantive evidence. Even in regard to the statement recorded Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by authorised Magistrate, it has been held accordingly. Therefore, the fact that the contradictions are proved through the investigating officers though the witnesses have denied having made such statements, does not translate the contradictions into substantive evidence. Unless there is substantive evidence, it cannot be acted upon legally particularly to base a conviction.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024

Decided On: 29.01.2025

Mahabir and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala,  and R. Mahadevan, , JJ.

Author:  J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation MANU/SC/0122/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: What procedure the court should follow while deciding criminal revision against the order of acquittal of accused?

We are not able to understand, on what basis the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have converted the finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Sub- Section (3) of Section 401 reads thus: "(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction." {Para 6}

7. There is one another feature which has disturbed us. According to the learned Counsel the High Court proceeded ex-parte without issuing notice to the three Appellants herein in the revision petition, who had already been acquitted by the Trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024

Decided On: 29.01.2025

Mahabir and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala,  and R. Mahadevan, , JJ.

Author:  J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation MANU/SC/0122/2025

Print Page

Bombay HC: Sessions Judge Can consider Electronic Evidence in Criminal Revision Without Section 65-B Certificate

 For considering whether the learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the order and at this stage whether for viewing CD or any other material, whether certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary? At this stage the Court is not accepting the said document as a proof in the trial. The Court is also not adjudicating upon any of the issues or the points with the help of such a document. As stated, it is only for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether case is made out to issue direction under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. assuming that the Court takes cognizance by rejecting the prayer for directions under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and direct police to make an inquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., still stage of trial is yet to come. The question of admissibility of offence would come only in the Trial and not any time before such document is tendered into evidence and sought to be proved by the prosecution or the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the question of expecting a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act itself does not arise at this stage. {Para 16}

21. This Court finds in view of above discussion that at this stage, what needs to be considered is only that a revision is pending before the Sessions Court against order passed by the learned JMFC refusing to pass order under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The objection is only to viewing of the CD by the Revisional Court. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that there is no bar to look into the documents and has rightly rejected the application and permitted the respondent to display the video recording. This order is passed only to enable the Court to look into the material that was produced before the Magistrate and nothing else. This Court finds that no fault can be found with the impugned order. For the above reasons, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not require any interference.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 76 of 2023

Decided On: 05.06.2023

Sudhir and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kishore C. Sant, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1987/2023

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

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}

67. 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.

12. 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.

20. 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"

68. 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.

Print Page