Anuj

3/15/13
Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Section 401 - High Court's powers of revision
Comments
1. Legislative history.-Section 401 corresponds to the provisions of section 439 of the old Code.
2. Object of provision.-The object of the revisional legislation under section 401, was to confer
upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct
miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper
precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury
to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to
individuals.1 The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is
whether substantial justice has been done. Though, if it has been an appeal, the applicant would be
entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in
revision the only question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice.2 Where
the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality, material irregularity or
impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision is dismissed.3 If the impugned
order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse
or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference is not advised in revision.4 The
powers of the High Court under sections 397 and 401, are wide. It can call for and examine the
record of any proceedings and interfere when a certain order, though legal, is improper.5
The proceedings under section 17 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act are
essentially of a civil nature and the Magistrate acts as persona designata and not as a criminal
court. The High Court cannot interfere under section 401.6 The High Court possesses a general
power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side,
the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of
revision. The High Court can at any stage of its own motion if it so desires, and certainly when
illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records and
examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its
duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications. So also its right to exercise its
powers of administrative superintendence.7
The jurisdictional sweep of the High Court under the provisions of section 401 is very much
circumscribed.8 Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case it was held that it was
legally impermissible to dismiss the revision as withdrawn with liberty to take all the pleas taken in
the High Court in the revision petition before the lower court against whose order the revision has
been filed. The revision petition is to be decided on merits.9
3. Section refers to proceedings mentioned in section 397.-Section 401 sets out the powers of
revision which a High Court has in the case of any proceeding, the record of which has been called
for by itself, or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge. This
section must be read along with section 397. It does not purport to qualify or add to, or detract
from, any of the provisions of the latter section.10 Section 401 is not independent of section 397.
Section 397 states the grounds and provides the machinery for the exercise of the powers which
the latter sections confer.11 The section only applies to a proceeding such as is expressly
mentioned in section 397, namely, a proceeding before an inferior criminal court.12
(i) Civil court's finding.-The finding of the civil court, after it is incorporated by the Magistrate in
his order, is revisable by the High Court in appropriate cases under section 401.13
(ii) Inapplicable provisions.-The provisions of section 401 and so also other provisions of Cr.P.C.
relating to "disposal" of property will not be applicable in face of specific disabling provision
contained in section 6-E, Essential Commodities Act.14 The police has statutory right to investigate
into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate under
www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompID=16866&actid=783&iPage=1&hText=
1/115
3/15/13
section 156 and this power cannot be interfered with under section 401.15
Where the High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, has pronounced judgment, application for
revision for enhancement of the sentence passed by Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be entertained,
because the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge including the sentence, has already been
replaced by the judgment of the High Court, which has no power to enhance the sentence passed
by itself.16
4. High Court on appellate side, if can revise orders passed by Judge of High Court presiding
over Sessions on original side.-Sections 397 and 401 would not enable the appellate side of the
High Court to interfere with non-appealable orders of the Judge presiding over the Criminal Sessions
of the High Court or correct or rectify mistakes or error if any committed during the trial at the
Sessions. A necessary prerequisite to the application of section 401 is that the record must be the
record of some court other than the High Court. The original side of the High Court is not a separate
court and hence section 401 cannot be invoked for the purpose of revising an order made by a
Judge of the High Court sitting in sessions. Neither expressly nor by necessary intendment does
section 374(1), supra, constitute the High Court exercising its original criminal jurisdiction inferior to
itself when it exercises the Special Appellate Jurisdiction conferred upon it by section 374(1).17
5. Extrajudicial and executive orders of Magistrate not revisable.-Under authority of a warrant
issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the amount from the accused released on bail is taken
custody of from the police station and proceedings are pending before Income-tax Commissioner. It
has been held that these proceedings are not criminal proceedings, hence, statutory powers of
income-tax authorities to deal with seizure cannot be interfered with under section 401.18 Action of
Munsif under section 195 is an administrative act and cannot be questioned on judicial side. No
revision lies.19 If a public servant chooses not to lodge a complaint under section 195, it cannot be
a judicial order attracting revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. It is an administrative order.20
Sessions Judge exercising his powers under sub-section (3) of section 13 of Karnataka Silk-Worm
Seed Cocoon and Silk Yarn (Regulation of Production) Act is not an inferior criminal court and
therefore the High Court cannot deal with such order exercising its revisional powers.21
6. Power of revision discretionary.-The controlling power of the High Court is a discretionary
power, and it must be exercised with regard to all the circumstances of each particular case,
anxious attention being given to the said circumstances which vary greatly. This discretion ought
not to be crystalized as it would become, in course of time, by one Judge, attempting to prescribe
definite rules with a view to binding other Judges in the exercise of the discretion which the
Legislature has committed to them. This discretion, like all other judicial discretions, ought, as far as
practicable, to be left untrammelled and free, so as to be fairly exercised according to the
exigencies of each case.22 Power of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court in matter of sentence is a discretionary one.23 Revisional jurisdiction under section 401 is
discretionary, but that discretion has to be sound discretion guided by law.24
(i) Interference in interests of justice and to stop abuse of process.-The exercise of the power
of interference cannot be circumscribed by any hard and fast rule and it must always depend upon
the particular circumstances of each case. Broadly speaking however it may be stated that the High
Court will generally interfere in the interests of justice and to stop abuse of process of law.25
Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice
require for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.26
All that is permitted to be done under the impugned order is to allow the investigating officer to
record the statement of the prosecutrix and submit the same to the court. In the larger interests of
justice it was held that the revisional powers of the High Court under section 401 should not be
exercised in that case.27
(ii) Exercise of jurisdiction in exceptional cases.-The jurisdiction of the High Court under section
401 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or
there is a manifest error of point of law and consequent flagrant miscarriage of justice.28 The
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is exercised at its discretion and only for the purpose of
relieving persons who have not had a fair trial, or whose convictions have been arrived at by nonobservance of material provisions of law, or by such misdirection as must have occasioned a failure
of justice.29 There is no species of injustice which the High Court would be powerless to correct
2/115
3/15/13
where its interference is called for. Hence the contention that because the lower appellate court
has rejected the appeal as time-barred the applicant should not be accorded an opportunity to be
heard in revision cannot be accepted.30
The revisional jurisdiction, when invoked on a private complaint against order of acquittal, can be
exercised only in exceptional cases where there is manifest illegality or irregularity or gross
miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked simply because the lower court
has not appreciated the evidence.31
(iii) Correction of error.-Under sections 397 and 401, the High Court has an absolute discretion to
interfere in revision in any case. If it had not been a correcting court, the word 'correctness' in
section 397, would have been redundant.32 The High Court will not exercise its discretionary power
in revision to re-open transactions which had been already legally completed under a temporary
statute, especially where all the necessary proceedings for the punishment of offenders had been
taken when the statute was in force.33 Where the impugned orders passed by the courts below do
not suffer from any legal infirmity or from excessive exercise, or, non-exercise of jurisdiction,
revision petitions would be without any merit and liable to be dismissed.34 What the High Court may
properly be asked to do in revision is to put right any incorrect or irregular or improper sentence or
order which a subordinate court may have delivered or to check any such irregularity as section 464
does not condone, but should not be asked to decide in the first instance those questions which the
Magistrate ought to decide for himself.35 The revisional powers of High Court, wide though they are,
are purely discretionary and must be exercised not as a matter of course, but only to further the
ends of justice.
It is not every irregularity or error committed by the subordinate court that the revisional court will
take upon itself to set right. The High Court does not interfere if it thinks that substantial justice
has been done in a case. But where it is satisfied that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken
place it possesses unfettered powers to pass such orders as it, in its discretion thinks fit to do so
even though the aggrieved person could have taken the matter to an appellate court and has failed
to do so. There can be no hard and fast rule and the decision in each case depends on its own
peculiar circumstances.36 It is the duty of the High Court when a matter has been brought to its
notice which it considers should be corrected to deal with it. The appeal though withdrawn in such
a case may be treated as a revision.37
Normally the High Court will not interfere with the exercise of power of tendering pardon.38
In petty cases under the Madras Village Courts Act, 1889, the High Court will not ordinarily
interfere.39
7. High Court to exercise discretionary power to prevent failure of justice.-Under the powers
of revision vested in the High Court under Chapter XXX of the Code, the High Court has ample
powers to rectify any inadvertent failure of justice.40 The High Court, suo motu, in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction can set aside the conviction of the non-petitioning accused for the ends of
justice.41 In the exercise of its revisional powers, the High Court will not interfere, unless it is
satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent an otherwise irreparable injustice.42 It is settled
law that the power of interference in revision should be most sparingly exercised and only in cases it
is urgently demanded in the interests of public justice.43
The High Court, while exercising revisional powers, should refrain from interfering with the findings of
the lower court except when there is glaring defect of serious nature which has resulted in grave
failure of justice.44 Normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 401 is to be exercised
only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error
on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.45
An employee of High Court was convicted for forging bail order. High Court in revision had set aside
the conviction with the observation that the accused must be deemed to have been in continuous
service without break and was entitled for full allowances. Apex Court did not approve of such
directions, as High Court in revision had no power to issue such directions.46
(i) Conviction.-The High Court in revision can interfere with the conviction only if there has been a
miscarriage of justice either by reason of any material illegality or irregularity in procedure or where
3/115
3/15/13
there is no evidence to support the findings or the finding has been arrived at contrary to wellestablished principles of law.47 On a conviction of several accused only one accused files appeal
against conviction. The whole prosecution story is found not free from doubt. It was held that it
would not be in accordance with justice to allow other convicts who had not appealed, to remain
convicted. In exercise of powers under section 401, the High Court would set aside their conviction
and acquit them.48
(ii) Miscarriage of justice.-The discretion in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction should be
exercised where there has been a miscarriage of justice in whatever manner the miscarriage may
have arisen. As to what amounts to miscarriage of justice serious enough to rouse the conscience
of the court (as it is sometimes called) so as to justify interference in revision, that has been left
open by sections 397 and 401, to the discretion of the Judge which must be exercised with due
regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and so it is not capable of being determined by
any fixed set of rules.49 The fact that a revision does not lie at the instance of the complainant will
not affect the High Court's powers under section 401 to pass suitable orders in an appropriate case
when its attention is otherwise drawn to grave injustice or when it suo motu calls for certain
records of the subordinate courts.50
In a revisional jurisdiction the applicant has no right whatsoever beyond the right of bringing his
case to the notice of the court and it is then for the court to interfere in exceptional cases where
some real and substantial injustice has been done.51 The High Court will not set aside even
proceedings which are void if the interests of justice do not demand it.52 The High Court will not in
revision always interfere in an order, which is illegal, unless it is also shown to be unjust. But it,
being a court of justice, would not hesitate to disturb even a legal order in revision if it were
unjust.53 The Judicial Commissioner's court could interfere in revision even with a legal order where
it appears necessary in the interest of justice to do so.54 Where the accused prays that the entire
proceeding from the stage of issuing summons is not warranted by law, High Court can entertain the
petition.55
In the case on hand the evidence was cogent and credible, the findings were based after analysing
the evidence, there was no infirmity in the conclusions of the courts below calling for interference in
revision.56
It is not the practice of the Patna High Court to interfere in revision unless it considers that there is
a real possibility that there has been a miscarriage of justice.57
The High Court, as a court of criminal revision, ought not to be burdened with the decision of a
point of personal civil liability.58
8. High Court may refuse to interfere on technical grounds.-The High Court will not interfere in
revision on a technical point in the absence of proof of prejudice or injustice.59 Where there is no
grave injustice and when the infirmity is only technical, the High Court may refuse to interfere.60
Non-compliance with provisions of section 319 cannot be said to be such a glaring defect in
procedure or the violation of such a fundamental principle of law which can be taken as ipso facto
resulting in injustice to the prosecution and it cannot be said to be a fit case where the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised.61 Where the accused was convicted under
section 114, I.P.C., by the trial court, but circumstances showed that he ought to have been
convicted under section 109, it was held that, as the accused on either view was liable to exactly
the same punishment, the interest of justice required no interference on merely a technical
ground.62
It is not the function of the High Court, when exercising its revisional jurisdiction, to allow guilty
persons to escape the just reward of their misdoings on the basis of an unsubstantial technicality.63
Where no prejudice is caused to the accused because of the manner in which the charge is framed
and further this objection is not raised at earlier stage, the plea of defective framing of charge
cannot be raised for the first time in revision. An order of discharge was passed by two of the
Magistrates of the Bench, but the complaint of offence under section 211, I.P.C., was made by
three Magistrates. It was contended that this constituted an illegality because the complaint was
made by a court different from the court which passed the order of discharge. It was held that it
was a very technical matter and was no ground for interference in revisions.64
4/115
3/15/13
9. Interference in error of law.-Where in declining to issue summons to person abroad through the
concerned Embassy, the Magistrate has refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him, his order
calls for interference.65
(i) Conviction.-Where a conviction is based upon an erroneous view of the law, the High Court can
set it aside in revision.66 The summary trial and conviction of the accused at the place of
occurrence without allowing them an opportunity of being represented by legal practitioners or
calling defence witnesses is an irregular exercise of jurisdiction and open to revision.67 The High
Court quashed a conviction based upon evidence not recorded then and there but upon evidence
subsequently taken at the spot.68 Where in a case of trial under Assam Rifles Act, 1941 prescribed
procedure for warrant cases was not followed and the provisions of Cr.P.C. were totally violated
conviction was set aside and retrial ordered.69 Where the appellate court, while setting aside
conviction, directs the trial court to examine the prosecution witnesses and to deliver fresh
judgment, order of the appellate court is bad in law.70 The question whether an accused has been
sufficiently identified and whether his conviction on the evidence of one witness only should stand is
a point more of law than of fact and the High Court will interfere in revision.71 In a prosecution
under Bombay Prohibition Act, the point that the contraband preparations found in possessions is a
point of law and can be raised in revision.72
(ii) Wrong view of facts.-Where a court has taken a wrong view of the facts through an error in
law, e.g., where it places the burden of proof on the accused contrary to the principles illustrated in
section 101 of the Evidence Act, the High Court will interfere.73
(iii) Mistake.-When a lower court finds that it has passed an illegal order and informs the High
Court of the mistake the High Court has power, if it is of opinion that the order is illegal, to set right
the mistake. The fact that the information comes in a form not proper or that it comes after the
High Court has dismissed an appeal from the order summarily is no bar to its interfering and setting
right the mistake. If there is a real mistake or illegality the sooner it is set right the better.74
(iv) Illegality.-Where in the examination under section 313 only one question is put to the accused
and even in that question it is not put to him that he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent
manner and other circumstances appearing against the accused are not put to him, this has caused
prejudice to the accused which is an illegality which can be taken into consideration by the
revisional court.75 Where the Magistrate directs the accused to give his signature at the insistence
of police, so that it may be used for comparison, the Magistrate has transgressed the provisions of
law, the order being bad in law amounts to illegality and requires to be quashed.76 When the
illegality in the order has come to notice, the High Court has ample power in revision to set it right
by setting aside the order of the Magistrate, even though it has not been challenged in the
revision.77
The question that there was no legally admissible evidence against the accused is rather one of law
than of fact.78 Where the courts below rely on evidence inadmissible for the purposes to which they
put it, there is a case for revision.79 Where the appellate court has no jurisdiction to receive any
additional evidence and its judgment is influenced by such evidence, it cannot be sustained in law
and must be set aside and reversed in revision.80 Where there has been a clear error in law resulting
in a sentence of imprisonment, the High Court should interfere in revision.81
When doubts are open, the Sessions Judge having given the benefit of doubt to the accused cannot
be said to be unreasonable or manifest illegality. In a private revision, unless manifest illegality or
perverse approach of the trial court is brought out, the revisional court cannot interfere with the
order of acquittal.82 It cannot be shown that there is any misconception of law or irregularity of
procedure committed by the lower courts. The order of conviction and sentence does not suffer
from any illegality or impropriety. The revisional power of the High Court being a kind of supervisory
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from the misconception of law or irregularity of
procedure committed by subordinate courts, the revision petition is dismissed.83
10. High Court not bound to interfere in every case of error of law or irregularity.-The High
Court may interfere in revision, if there is a material error in any judicial proceeding, that is, an error
resulting in an unjust order, (per Mitter, J.).84 To justify the interference of the High Court in
revision, it must be shown first, that the Judge below has committed some error of law, and
5/115
3/15/13
secondly, that the accused has been materially prejudiced by that error.85 If the order of acquittal
is absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and ultra vires its legal competence as the
court has no power under law to pass such an order, such an order is to be treated as order of
discharge and as such cannot stand in the way of any revision.86
(i) Not a question of law.-With regard to the question of delay in the examination of bottle in a
prohibition case by the Chemical Examiner, this is not a question of law which can be agitated
before the High Court in a revision petition.87
(ii) Mere irregularity in procedure.-Mere irregularity of procedure is no ground for interference
and before any revisional action could be taken, it must at least be alleged that the accused has
suffered a hardship through the illegality.88 In regard to the grounds of law, the High Court does not
interfere with an error or omission or irregularity unless the same has caused failure of justice.89
Where an applicant has not in any way been prejudiced by an irregularity, the High Court will not
interfere in revision on the ground of that irregularity.90
(iii) Correct order without jurisdiction.-Even if the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order
if his order is a correct order that order can be maintained by the court of revision as its own
order.91
(iv) No interference in every case.-The High Court will not interfere in revision in every case in
which a question of law arises. The absolute discretion vested in the High Court under sections 397
and 401 to interfere in revision ought only to be exercised in order to prevent substantial injustice or
where there is involved a point of law of general importance which may govern other cases.92 It is
not the duty of the High Court sitting in revision to correct mere mistakes of law which have no
more effect than mistakes in grammar or spelling. The power of interference is to be used only for
the purpose of correcting injustice, not mere illegality.93
(v) No interference with illegality in face of substantial justice.-A court sitting in revision is not
bound to interfere even though an illegality has been committed by the lower court if it finds that
substantial justice has been done.94 Where the lower court refused adjournment on application
under section 407 but it appeared that the application was not bona fide, it was held that though
the refusal order was unjustified the High Court need not interfere.95 The High Court will not set
aside an order that proceeds upon an error of law but which apart from that error is a proper
order.96
(vi) Technical mistake.-A technical mistake in adjective law cannot be presumed to cause
injustice, and a court should not move in such a case in the exercise of its discretionary powers of
revision.97
(vii) Joint trial.-A joint trial of two cross-complaints treating the prosecution evidence in one as
defence evidence in the other with the consent of counsel in each case, is not, in the absence of
prejudice to the accused a ground for revisional interference.98 The controlling power of the High
Court under section 401 of the Code, being by its terms entirely discretionary the court is not bound
to set aside on revision, a case of a joint trial of two opposing factions in a riot case, though it is
opposed to sections 218 and 223 of the Code and is altogether illegal and void, if no prejudice is
shown to have resulted to the accused.99
(viii) Misjoinder of charges.-It is not imperative for the High Court to interfere in revision in every
case in which there has been an illegality in the trial. In a case of a misjoinder of charges which has
not prejudiced the petitioner, the High Court would decline to interfere.100 Where a trial was illegal
on account of misjoinder of charges but the accused pleaded guilty and he was convicted and did
not apply for revision, the High Court would refuse to interfere in the exercise of its discretion.101
But where the accused had been prejudiced by the misjoinder of charges and trials, it is necessary
and right for the High Court to interfere in revision and order retrial.102
(ix) Order of commitment.-Normally the High Court in revision against order of commitment will not
enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence on which the order of commitment is made. The High Court
will be justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction where a substantial question of law arises on
which correctness of order of commitment may be effectively challenged, where there is no
evidence to make the order of commitment, where there has been denial of a right of fair trial,
6/115
3/15/13
where there is failure to comply with the rules of procedure or conditions precedent to initiation of
criminal proceedings, where by ignoring substantive law or misconception of evidence on matters of
importance grave injustice has resulted, and on similar other grounds.103
(x) Omission to frame a charge or defective charge.-Omission to frame a charge is not a ground
of appeal or revision unless there has been a consequent miscarriage of justice.104 Where in a case
of conviction for rioting, the charge was defective in that it did not specify the common object and
neither the judgment of the original court nor that of the Sessions Judge in appeal found what the
common object was, the High Court refused to issue a rule as there was no necessity in the
interests of justice for its interference, there being ample evidence on record to justify a
conviction.105
(xi) Conviction.-Conviction recorded under a repealed Act is not a vital error if the accused is
guilty under an Act in force and the revision court will not interfere in such a case.106
Where both the courts had found on assessment of the evidence that the Magistrate who tried the
case had jurisdiction and so in view of such concurring finding of fact, the High Court sitting in
revision could not disturb the same. Even if the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, his
order of conviction and sentence which has been upheld by the appellate court is not to be set
aside.107
11. Order without jurisdiction to be set aside in revision.-No restrictions can be placed on the
undoubted jurisdiction of the High Court to correct jurisdictional errors committed by the subordinate
courts.108 In the absence of an appeal, revision is always open unless there is something special
barring revision. Even where there is something barring revision, the High Court can always hold
whether an order had or had not been passed without jurisdiction, for, if an order is without
jurisdiction, it is a mere nullity, and the High Court would not be revising that order but declaring
that the order was a nullity.109 Where a Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred calendar cases triable
by a first class Magistrate to the file of a second class Magistrate with a direction to treat them as
preliminary register cases with the intention that the cases should be committed to the session's
court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate committed an error of jurisdiction and his order transferring the
cases was set aside in revision.110
However, where no objection is taken that the session's court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint under section 199 immediately after the summons was served, or at the time the order for
framing of the charge is passed, and the accused has waited till the entire prosecution case is over,
no hardship will be caused to the accused if the High Court does not interfere in revision at this
stage on the ground of jurisdiction.111
12. High Court when may interfere with discretion of subordinate courts.-The High Court has
powers to interfere, where the lower court, which is required by law to exercise a discretion,
exercises no discretion at all, or has exercised it in a wholly unreasonable and improper manner.112
There is nothing in the Essential Commodities Act to infer that the District and Sessions Judge is to
act in any capacity other than as a court. Revision against order of Sessions Judge under Essential
Commodities Act to the High Court lies.113 The revisional court has to see whether substantial
justice has been done. It is only in exceptional cases when there is manifest error on point of law
and consequent flagrant miscarriage of justice that the revisional court steps in to interfere.114 An
order of discharge should not be disturbed by the High Court unless it is demonstrated to be
obviously improper.115 The High Court will not interfere in revision unless it is established that the
Magistrate has exercised his discretion arbitrarily or erroneously.116 The revisional jurisdiction
conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it is invoked by a
private complaint. The interference by the High Court on the ground that the judgment of the
Sessions Judge was contrary to section 353 and remanding it for fresh hearing is not justified.117
(i) Not acquitting accused and adjourning case.- When the Magistrate disallowed the prayer of
the accused to acquit him because of the absence of the complainant, the Magistrate must have
been conscious of the prayer of the complainant to dispense with his presence, and must be
deemed to have dispensed with his presence. In any event, not acquitting the accused and
adjourning the case is not such an illegal order which must on revision be interfered with and
acquittal of the accused ordered instead.118
7/115
3/15/13
(ii) Sentence.-Unless there is something that is manifestly wrong with the sentence, unless it is
clearly out of proportion to the offence, if it is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and he has
exercised his discretion, the discretion of the Magistrate in the matter of sentence should not be
interfered with in revision.119
(iii) Interference only for good reasons.-Except for very good reasons, the High Court should not
interfere with the discretion of the trial courts in the matter of summoning documents.120 Where
although a Magistrate having been given discretion to pass orders in certain matters does not use
his discretion, but passes certain order acting on the belief that it was compulsory for him to pass
order only in that way, the High Court can interfere in revision with such order.121
Following are the instances where the High Court may interfere in revision with the findings recorded
by the subordinate courts :
(a) where the allegations are patently absurd ;
(b) where the allegations are inherently improbable ;
(c) where from the allegations and proof adduced before the subordinate courts, absolutely no case
is made out against accused revisionists ;
(d) where the Magistrate and the subordinate appellate court exercised their discretion arbitrarily by
relying on irrelevant and inadmissible evidence ; and
(e) where the complaint against the accused revisionists suffers from fundamental legal defects i.e.,
want of sanction etc.122
The prosecution had not examined material independent witnesses without giving any reason while
the witnesses examined as eye-witnesses were interested persons it was held that there was no
ground for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the court below in revision.123
(iv) Principle of discretion misconceived.-A High Court can interfere in revision where the
principle on which a Sessions Judge exercises his discretion is misconceived.124
(v) Good reasons given by Magistrate.-Where the Magistrate has given good reasons for holding
that no case is made out against some accused and nothing has been pointed out to show that the
reasoning of the Magistrate is vitiated or is not based on any evidence, the High Court will uphold
the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused.125
(vi) Manifest illegality.-Where in a double murder case the evidence of the eye-witness, whose
son and husband are murdered, is rejected on the ground that the testimony is not sufficiently
corroborated on all material particulars, the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused
suffers from a manifest illegality which has resulted in gross injustice, requiring the High Court to
interfere with the order of acquittal.126
(vii) Utter want of discretion.-Where there was an utter want of discretion on the part of a
Magistrate in instituting proceedings for security for good behaviour the High Court interfered and
quashed the proceedings.127 Cheating cases and insolvency proceeding pending-Magistrate
directing payment of currency notes to complainant under section 451 in spite of requests of
insolvency court to the contrary-Effect-Case held fit for interference.128
(viii) Exercise of jurisdiction not arbitrary.-Where a discretion has been exercised by a court of
competent jurisdiction which is not on the face of it arbitrary, the High Court in revision will neither
inquire into the reasons nor interfere.129
(ix) No interference.-The High Court cannot lightly interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge
setting aside the confiscation, specially in revision under section 401 without making out any of the
well recognised grounds for interfering in revision.130 Where two courts below, in their judicial
discretion declined to direct prosecution, in revision the High Court is not at all justified in itself
directing the filing of complaint. At best, if the High Court considered the orders of the two courts
below tainted with a serious infirmity or manifest error resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, it
could have, after quashing those orders, sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of
the matter in accordance with law.131 Where framing of charges was proper interference was held
8/115
3/15/13
not justified.132 In a case of framing of charge under section 307, I.P.C., the fact of injury being
dangerous to life was corroborated and hence the court did not interfere with the process of
framing of charges.133
13. High Court may set aside defective judgments.-The High Court, has, on the revision side
power to set aside a defective judgment and return the case to the appellate court.134 In a case,
the High Court set aside an appellate judgment and directed re-hearing on the ground that sufficient
materials should be given in the judgment to enable the High Courts to come to a conclusion as to
the correctness of the sentence passed against different accused charged with different
offences.135 If the judgment of the appellate Magistrate makes it probable that he has not fully
heard and considered the appeal, his disposal should not be allowed to stand.136 Where the
judgment of a Sessions Judge in appeal does not contain a proper discussion of the evidence in the
case the High Court will be justified in interfering in revision.137
Where the appellate judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, although it does not strictly comply
with the provisions of section 354, does make it clear that the Magistrate had perused the evidence
and heard the arguments, and having heard the case argued, had come to independent opinion as
to the guilt of the applicants, the High Court need not set aside the Magistrate's order and direct
the appeal to be re-heard as there had not been any failure of justice. The High Court is not
invariably bound to interfere in revision, because there is an irregularity in the form of a judgment
unless there is some reason to believe, that there has been a failure of justice.138
14. Grounds of revision
(i) Grounds not raised in lower courts if entertainable.-Where a point is not urged in the court
of first instance or on appeal, the High Court will not interfere in revisions unless there has been a
miscarriage of justice.139 A plea which has not been raised in courts below cannot be raised for the
first time in revision.140 It is not advisable to go into a question of fact for the first time in the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.141 Where the point that there is no evidence to
show that the Magistrate is authorised to receive and try charges under section 20 of the Cattle
Trespass Act is not raised before the Magistrate himself, the presumption in law is that the
proceeding by the Magistrate must have been taken in accordance with law and it is too late to
raise this point for the first time at this stage in revision.142
It is not possible for the High Court, in revision, to find fault with the order of Magistrate on the
ground which was not urged before him, nor has been taken in the revision petition.143 Where a
petitioner has failed to raise a point in either of the courts of fact, he cannot be allowed to press it
in revision.144 It is highly inappropriate on the part of petitioners to raise the question of limitation in
a revision petition straight in the High Court, as it is clearly a matter to be decided upon fact and
should have been raised before the Magistrate.145
A contention which was not raised before the trial court or the appellate court, cannot be permitted
to be raised in the revision.146 The dismissal of the complaint discharging the accused for nonappearance of the complainant and his counsel can be interfered with by the High Court in
revision.147
(a) New point on fact.-A new point which involves a question of fact cannot be raised in
revision.148 A point involving questions of fact as well as law ought to be raised in the courts of fact
and not in revision for the first time.149 Where on a question of fact, the accused has not taken a
stand specifically in the trial court nor is it mentioned in the statement under section 313, the
accused cannot be permitted to raise the same in revision petition.150
Where the applicant was absconding and was outside country it was held that the conduct of the
applicant was such that revision application could not be entertained.151
(b) Maintenance.-The claim for maintenance of wife under section 125, is based on grounds relating
to ill-treatment by husband which ground is found to be not proved. There is not even a whisper on
her behalf that she wants separate residence because of presence of other wife of husband and,
therefore, she cannot raise this issue for the first time at revisional stage.152
(c) Non-compliance with provision.-Plea of non-compliance with rule 9(j) of Prevention of Food
9/115
3/15/13
Adulteration Rules (Central) cannot be raised for the first time in revision before the High Court
when no such objection was put forward before the trial court or in appellate court.153 Whether the
provisions of section 278, have been duly complied with or not is a question of fact ; unless it has
been raised and proved before the subordinate appellate court, it cannot be raised for the first time
in the High Court in revision.154 Where the cognizance was taken in 1970 and witnesses have been
examined and cross-examined and objection petition filed in 1974 regarding non-compliance with
provisions of section 200, that objection could have been raised much earlier and there was nothing
to quash the proceedings.155 However, the plea of non-compliance by the prosecution of the
mandatory provisions of section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, though not raised in the courts
below, can be raised at revisional stage in the High Court.156
(d) Plea of right to get copies of statements under section 162.-A plea that the accused is entitled
to obtain copies of writings containing statements of witnesses under section 162 is not a matter
which can be raised for the first time in revision at the stage of arguments. It is a matter primarily
for the trial court itself to decide. When it is not raised even in the revision petition, the court will
not consider it and will refrain from deciding it or giving any opinion on it.157 Point not raised in
revision petition will not be allowed to be raised at time of hearing.158
(e) New plea.-Where the plea that the accused was not named as an accused in the complaint has
not been raised at the trial, on the contrary, he entered a plea of not guilty on his own behalf and
also stood examination as an accused, the objection cannot be entertained in revision in the High
Court as it is belated and the defect, if any, has not occasioned a failure of justice.159
(f) New case.-A party cannot be allowed to set up at the revisional stage, or even at trial stage, a
case which, though disclosed in the evidence, has not been set out in the pleadings.160 A new case
which will materially prejudice the accused is not maintainable in revision.161
The plea of the surety that the forfeiture of the bond is bad as it is executed in one court and
forfeited in another is not interlaced with any question of fact but is based purely on construction of
the terms of the bond of appearance, the order of transfer and the relevant provisions of the Code
and as such, should be allowed to be raised for the first time in revision.162
(g) Competence of officials.-If an accused does not challenge the competence of the excise or
police officials to give opinion, or the sufficiency of the tests adopted at the trial stage itself, he
should not be allowed to raise such contentions in the revisional courts.163
The point that an order of the Magistrate under section 259 of Cantonments Act is in his capacity
of persona designata and as such the order is not revisable under section 401 cannot be allowed to
be raised before the High Court at this late stage.164
(h) Omission to mention date of offence.-Where the date of offence is not mentioned in the
charge, but is mentioned in the complaint filed, and no objection was taken in the Magistrate's
court, it cannot be contended in the revision petition that the omission has caused prejudice to the
accused.165
(i) Mixed question of law and fact.-Where a mixed question of law and fact has not been raised in
either of the two courts below, it cannot be permitted to be raised at the stage of revision.166
Whether a First Class Magistrate was specially empowered under the Bihar and Orissa Places of
Pilgrimage Act (II of 1920), to impose daily fine, being a mixed question of law and fact, could not
be raised for the first time in revision, when it was not raised either during trial or when the matter
was taken up in revision before the Sessions Judge or even in the grounds of the revision petition
before the High Court.167
A plea not taken before the trial court as well as the appellate court, such plea at the revisional
stage is untenable.168 Where a plea was taken for the first time before the appellate court and it
was dealt with in details by the appellate court to discard it, it was held that no interference was
called for in revision.169 A plea that there was no evidence as to whether the Food Inspector had
the requisite qualification was not raised in the trial court or the appellate court, it was held that
this plea cannot be raised in revision.170
(j) Bar of limitation.-Even though the High Court has power to take recourse to later clause of
10/115
3/15/13
section 473, it is not safe to do so for the first time in the revisional jurisdiction.171
(k) Omission to ask for further arguments.-Omission by a party to ask for further arguments when
Magistrate had examined witness after close of both parties, case, and after submission of
arguments is a bar to raising objections to the Magistrate's act as a ground of revision.172
(l) Prejudice by procedure.-When a convicted person appears in an appellate or revisional court and
asks for interference on the ground that he was prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the trial
court, an important point always is whether the objection was taken at the earliest opportunity. It
is doubtful whether, when an accused person does make an objection at the earliest possible
moment, he can be debarred from raising it subsequently in a court of appeal or revision merely
because he did not come up straightaway to that court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise
a new ground not taken in the courts below. It is true that the question is one of law but even so
there is no good reason for departing f rom the well-settled principles regulating procedure in criminal
courts. Parties-whether State or individual-should have prior notice of new grounds. They should
not be taken by surprise. But an objection with regard to the legality of a trial can be taken in a
court of revision or appeal, even though it was never taken in the court of first instance at all.173
(m) Plea of good faith.-If the facts and circumstances proved in a case support the plea of good
faith and other requirements of Exception 9 of section 499, I.P.C. it is open to the accused to rely
on the same in revision and claim benefit of the said Exception in spite of his not having pleaded it in
courts below.174
(n) Handwriting evidence.-The evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to the handwriting of a
person was not challenged in the trial court nor were the witnesses cross-examined by the defence,
though they had an opportunity to do so. It was held that the prosecution having given sufficient
time to comply with the provisions of law, that matter cannot be challenged in revision.175
(o) Technical objection.-Accused is convicted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on basis of
the report of the public analyst, which is accepted by the accused. The accused cannot in revision
raise technical objection that the public analyst is appointed not for Union Territory of Himachal
Pradesh but for Punjab.176
(p) Ground not taken in appeal.-A
application filed at a late stage by
point was not taken as a ground in
entertain the objection in revision
grievance is made against closing of
before the Addl. Sessions Judge or
afterthought.178
Magistrate exercised his discretion properly in disallowing an

accused to further cross-examine a prosecution witness. This
the appeal before the Sessions Judge. The High Court will not
and there was no defect in the proceedings.177 Where no
their defence by the Magistrate either in the grounds of appeal
in arguments before him, this plea obviously seems to be an
(q) Acquiescence to jurisdiction.-Where the petitioners never objected to the case being heard by
the Magistrate in proceedings under section 145 and took their chance of success, the case having
been decided against them, they cannot now be permitted to challenge the final orders of the
Magistrate as being without jurisdiction.179 Direction to file complaint under section 340 is not one
without jurisdiction-it makes no appreciable difference to the accused whether the complaint is filed
by the appellate court or the lower court. When one, who is a party to the order allowed it to
become final, cannot be allowed to raise this irregularity in revision before the High Court.180 For the
first time in revision, on non-existent evidence, the plea cannot be raised to challenge the
prosecutions as void for want of "prescribed qualifications" of the Food Inspector concerned in a
case under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.181
(r) Want of jurisdiction.-But a plea of want of jurisdiction may be taken in the High Court even
though not taken in the lower court.182 Although the point is raised for the first time, when it
involves jurisdiction of the officer making the order, it can be raised in revision for the first time.183
Objection as to jurisdiction of the court being purely legal in nature is allowed to be raised in the
High Court in revision, though not raised in the lower court, as the same goes to the root of the
matter.184
(s) Want of sanction.-A plea as to want of proper and valid sanction being a matter of fundamental
importance going to the root of the proceedings, can be allowed in revisions.185
11/115
3/15/13
(t) Point of law.-A point of law can be raised for the first time in revision.186 Where subsequent
proceedings are prima facie barred under section 403(1) by acquittal of accused in prior
proceedings but this ground is not taken by the accused in the revision petition filed against his
conviction in the subsequent proceedings, the High Court is entitled to take notice of the fact suo
motu.187 Where it is brought to the notice of a court having revisional jurisdiction that a person has
been convicted and sentenced for doing an act which at the time was not an offence, it is the duty
of the court to interfere and set aside the conviction and sentence. The fact that the point, viz.,
that the act alleged was not an offence at the time, was not raised in the lower courts, is no
ground for not interfering in revision.188
(u) Proceedings under section 145.-Where proceedings were stayed under section 145 and parties
were directed to get their claim adjudicated by civil court, order of Magistrate being a final one was
held revisable.189
(v) Proceedings under section 323, I.P.C.-In a case of ill-treatment of wife by husband where
complaint was lodged under sections 323, 498 and 504 of I.P.C. incidents took place 9 (nine) years
before and subsequently divorce took place, retrial could not be ordered.190
(ii) Two contentions raised in revision-High Court finding that accused will succeed even on
one point-Other point may not be considered.-Where, in a criminal revision, the High Court finds
that the accused is entitled to succeed by giving a finding on one of the two points raised by him
and that the decision on the other point impugning the validity of a Notification issued by the Chief
Commissioner is not imperative for giving the finality to the matter in hand, it is not obligatory on
the part of the High Court to consider the other point also. If the accused wants a decision on the
validity of the Notification, it will have to be done in other appropriate proceedings.191
15. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court.-In the absence of exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances, direct revision before High Court without approaching sessions court, is
not maintainable.192
(i) Suo motu action.-The High Court can entertain a revision suo motu if sufficient facts are
brought to its notice.193 The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised suo motu.194
The words "record of which has been called for by itself" in sub-section (1) of section 401 are not
limited to cases where the High Court acts suo motu. In any case whether the High Court acts of
its own initiative or on petition, it must call for the records and in fact the petition invariably asks
for the records to be called for in so many words.195 In proper cases, the High Court can take
action suo motu against the orders passed by the subordinate courts.196 Where the illegality of the
sentence is patent and has come to its notice, the High Court should deal with the matter suo motu
in the exercise of its power of revision under section 401, even though the accused has not
appealed.197
The power under section 401 is one which the High Court can exercise suo motu and all that a
person filing a revision petition does is to draw the court's attention to an illegal, improper, or
incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate court. Filing of revision petition by the brother
of the deceased where Government did not do so does not affect the powers of the High Court
under section 401.198 If a clear illegality or injustice comes to the notice of High Court by
whatsoever means it might be, the suo motu jurisdiction of the High Court is available to correct
such mistakes.199
(ii) "Record otherwise comes to its knowledge".-The words "or which (i.e., the record)
otherwise comes to its knowledge" in section 401(1) cannot have reference to any power outside
the Cr.P.C. They are not words which confer a power. They are words which save any power that
exists and it is not unusual for statutes to contain saving general words of this nature.200 The High
Court may exercise its powers of revision upon information in whatever way received.201 Revisional
jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court by being moved either by the convicted person or by
any other person or suo motu on the basis of its own knowledge derived from any source.202
Section 401 authorises the High Court, without an application from any party, to exercise its
jurisdiction in order to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by
any inferior criminal court. After having found that the impugned order of the Magistrate is neither
legal nor correct, it will be travesty of justice if the High Court declines to interfere, for the simple
12/115
3/15/13
reason that the petitioner's application is barred by time.203

(a) Official communication.-An official communication from Government for revision of a case is
covered by the terms of section 401 and the High Court can exercise its revisional powers when a
case comes to the notice of the court through an official communication direct from Government.204
Though the court has power under section 401 to call for cases not only on judicial information, but
also to deal with a case "which otherwise comes to its knowledge" yet, in most circumstances it is a
right practice that the Judges should be moved in open court.205
(b) Appeal by other convicts.-The High Courts of their own motion can set aside convictions of
persons jointly tried and convicted at one trial, who have not preferred appeals though they could
have done so, but in which the matter has come up before the High Court on appeal or revision filed
by other convicts, if on examining record it be discovered that the lower courts have acted illegally
on a point which affected all the convicts equally.
Where the appeals are incompetent or are voluntarily withdrawn by the appellants, the High Court,
none the less, if satisfied, that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken place, can examine the
record, and, if the circumstances require, exercise their plenary powers of revision.206 It does not
matter in whatever way the record comes to the High Court. The High Court has power under this
section in a proper case to set aside the conviction and sentence passed on an accused person
who has not appealed, while considering the case of the co-accused who did appeal, and it has a
similar power in considering an appeal by the complainant.207 However, where a party aggrieved has
a right of appeal which he has deliberately elected to leave unused, the High Court is as a rule slow
to interfere either of its own motion or at the instance of any unauthorised third person.208
(c) Case brought by other party.-Even if a party does not apply to the High Court in revision but
the said case is brought before the court by some other party, nothing will stand in the way of the
High Court to exercise its revisional powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends
of justice. In complaints against strikers for offences under sections 4 and 5 of Essential Services
Maintenance Ordinance and prosecution by police, consent is given to public prosecutor, in spite of
opposition by complainants, to withdraw the cases, held, in a matter of such public importance, the
High Court can exercise its powers of revision suo motu, if there is sufficient ground and the locus
standi of the person bringing the matter to the notice of the High Court will be of no
consequence.209
Ordinarily, where a person being a friend and as such interested in liberty of another sentenced to
imprisonment applies in revision, the court will not interfere where it appears that the prisoner is of
age, educated and sane unless the court is satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Even where there has been a miscarriage of justice, the court, in the interest of the prisoner
himself, where he himself prefers to abide by the decision already given, must be careful to avoid
taking any action which may place him in other and perhaps greater jeopardy while seeking to
remove the stigma of illegality from the administration of the law. Where the informant in revision
has highlighted the deficient manner in which prosecution has been conducted resulting in acquittal
of the accused, the revision is maintainable.210 On the other hand, the court cannot allow any such
alleged miscarriage to be used to gratify a desire for self-advertisement or pretended martyrdom at
the expense of the court's reputation for impartiality and justice.211
(iii) Application by private prosecutor in pending Sessions case-Maintainability.-In theory,
anybody may invite the High Court to act under sections 397/401 ; usually it will not act except on
the invitation of one that is directly affected by the alleged illegality or irregularity. In a pending
Sessions case, the public prosecutor who is in charge or any one under his authority should move
the application ; if having been given reasonable time he fails to move in the matter, then and then
alone the private prosecutor may do so.212
(iv) Petition of appeal may be treated as an application in revision.-A petition of appeal may
be dealt with in revision where no appeal lies under the law.213 However, where an appeal is
competent but is filed beyond limitation the petition of appeal cannot be treated as an application
for revision, inasmuch as sub-section (4) bars an application for revision in cases in which an appeal
lies.214
There is no bar to treat an appeal as revision petition under section 401 if appeal is not
13/115
3/15/13
maintainable.215 A petition of appeal is not equivalent to a revisional application but under section
401 if any case comes to the knowledge of the High Court in any way whatever, the High Court can
exercise powers of revision.216 Where a Magistrate passes an order of discharge when the correct
order would have been of acquittal, and appeal does not lie under section 376, the High Court can
treat it as revision under section 401 and set aside the order of the Magistrate.217
Where a revision petition is filed in High Court by the complainant to enhance sentence and the
accused has filed appeals against convictions and sentences to the Sessions Judge and the
complainant subsequently files a transfer petition to transfer appeals to High Court to be heard
along with the revision petition, revision petition shall be kept pending till the disposal of appeals by
session's court, the situation not being exceptional one to hear the appeal and revision together.218
(v) Third party-Petition by-If competent.-Powers of revision given to the High Court under
section 401 are wide enough to empower it to entertain a petition by third persons, even when the
accused did not co-operate and took no steps to appeal, because the section expressly includes
cases or proceedings "which otherwise come to its knowledge". However, in a case which has
proceeded on a police report and the State has not come forward in revision against the order of
discharge, a private party has no locus standi to do so.219 The restriction mentioned in sub-section
(4), section 401, only stands in the way of revision proceedings at the instance of the party who
could have appealed and did not appeal but is not a bar to the petition of any one else, who desires
to bring any irregularity or illegality of a subordinate court to the notice of the High Court. This
power should however be sparingly exercised.220
(a) Police case.-No doubt in a police case the complainant loses his right of appeal under section
378, but he is not altogether helpless. He may invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Where the Sessions Judge has taken into account all the relevant circumstances and though there
are slight mistakes in some of the reasons, but the judgment as a whole shows that he has really
applied his mind to evidence before passing the order of acquittal, as pointed out by the Supreme
Court interference in revision by the High Court at the instance of private party is not justified.221
In a case instituted on police report, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked by
the private complainant against order of acquittal, but it can be exercised only in exceptional cases
for correction of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.222 In cases
instituted on police reports, ordinarily a complainant has no locus standi to come in revision to High
Court. But if there is manifest error on point of law causing miscarriage of justice, the High Court
can exercise its rev isional powers even at the instance of a private party.223 A private party has no
locus standi in a case instituted on police report to demand adjudication on an application in
revision. But in exceptional cases, revisional jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court on a
petition by private party in a case instituted on police report.224 As the High Court could call for
cases in revision suo motu, it could also allow a private person to move it in the exercise of its
revisional powers.225 In such a proceeding his counsel should not expect to be heard.226 But the
High Court will not act under this section on the initiative of a private individual where, by doing so,
it would allow that individual to usurp the functions of the District Magistrate, who could, if so
advised, apply for revision.227
The High Court should be sparing in invoking the criminal revisional jurisdiction by a private party in a
case which proceeds on police report.228
(b) Private informant.-A private informant has a right to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court in appropriate cases where an order of lower court has occasioned grave failure of justice.229
A private party cannot maintain revision against acquittal.230
(c) Bar Association.-Where two members of the Bar Association were convicted under section 117,
I.P.C., read with section 9, Salt Act, by the first class Magistrate, and the Bar Association
authorised the President to file a revision application to the High Court invoking its powers under
section 401 on the ground that the conviction was illegal, it was held that the proceedings by way
of revision before the High Court were not initiated by a party who could have appealed but had not
appealed and, therefore, sub-section (4) was inapplicable.231 The High Court has power to interfere
in revision in a proper case, even though the party moving it is not the accused but some third
party, such as the Bar Association.232 Where the order of dismissal of application by one accused
14/115
3/15/13
effects all the accused, revision against the order by other accused is maintainable.233
(d) Witness.-An order made by a Magistrate under section 321, can be set aside in revision even if
the revision application is made by a witness in the case who is the aggrieved person.234
(vi) Revision application can be filed in respect of order of conviction after death of convicted
person.-The High Court can entertain an application for revision against an order of conviction even
after the convicted person is dead. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court by
being moved either by convicted person himself or by any other person or suo motu, on the basis of
its own knowledge. The conditions for the exercise of the power of revision are laid down in the
opening clause of section 401. While the condition for the exercise of the powers of courts of
appeal is that an appeal must be preferred by the convicted person, that condition is conspicuous
by its absence where the conditions of the exercise of the powers of revision are laid down in
section 401.235 Provisions of abatement of appeals shall not apply to revision petitions, and revision
petitions shall not abate on death of the accused. The High Court is not bound in a revision petition
to order substitution in every case. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. to implead the legal
representatives of a party on his death in a criminal revision case.236
(vii) Death of applicant after filing application.-Any case can be brought to the notice of the
High Court in revision by any person. Where, therefore, the applicant dies after filing the application
in revision, the court will thereafter take action suo motu if the record indicates that there is
sufficient reason to do so.237
The revision against sentence of fine does not abate on the death of the petitioner on the principle
applicable to appeals under section 394, supra.238 If a sentence of fine is involved, the question of
conviction and sentence will have to be gone into even on the death of the applicant in revision as
the fine is recoverable from the assets of the deceased in the hands of the legal representatives.239
16. Scope of inquiry in revision where accused had pleaded guilty.-Where the accused has
pleaded guilty, he cannot be heard in revision except as to the extent or legality of the
sentence.240 But the High Court in revision is not bound by section 375 but may examine the record
for the purpose of seeing whether the accused have had a fair trial and whether their plea of guilty
was based on a proper conception of the facts.241 Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not
controlled by the principles contained in the provisions of section 375 and may be invoked, whether
suo motu or on application to examine the legality of conviction also even when such a conviction is
based on a plea of guilty.242
(i) Revisional powers as ample as in appeal.-Where in a particular case the powers of an
appellate court are restricted by section 375, the powers of the High Court in revision are not
similarly restricted. The powers of the High Court in dealing with the revision application are as
ample as if an appeal on the merit had been entertainable by the Sessions Judge and had been
dismissed.243
(ii) No curtailment of revisional powers.-The revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised in such a
manner that it will compel a Magistrate to apply his judicial mind honestly to the complaint preferred
to him but not so as to inhibit him from throwing out a complaint which, after applying his judicial
mind to relevant materials, he feels should be thrown out. The revisional powers of the High Court
are not in any way curtailed or circumscribed by section 375, and even when there is a plea of
guilty, it is open to the High Court to go into a question of fact as well as of law, and find out
whether the conviction was right or not.244
(iii) Incorrect or illegal finding.-Though no appeal lies under section 375, against an order of
conviction on the accused's plea of guilty except as to the extent or legality of the sentence, the
High Court in revision may interfere with the conviction, apart merely from the sentence, if it is
satisfied that the finding is either incorrect, illegal or improper. The High Court, however, should not
arbitrarily or without good reason disregard the plea of guilty.
It must be satisfied that the plea of guilty was either misunderstood or misconceived under the
particular features present in the case. While an accused cannot ordinarily be allowed to withdraw
from his plea of guilty insofar as it amounts to his confession of the facts charged, he can at the
same time be allowed to challenge the legality of the conviction apart from the sentence, if any
error in the proceeding has vitiated the trial and affected the legality of the conviction.245
15/115
3/15/13
(iv) Examination of evidence and charge.-Under section 401, the High Court can examine the
evidence on which the conviction is based, irrespective of the plea of guilty. Where the Magistrate
followed the procedure under section 240, the High Court will be reluctant to examine the
sufficiency or otherwise of the materials before the Magistrate. But it is certainly open to the High
Court to examine the charge and see whether the material was such as to warrant any conviction
under the I.P.C.246
17. Powers of High Court
(i) High Court has all powers of appellate court.-Section 401 of the Code shows that the High
Court can, as a court of revision, exercise all the powers given to it as a court of appeal, except
those excluded by the section.247 Therefore, an order which the High Court can pass in appeal, can
also pass in revision with the limitation that if it enhances punishment, then only the parties will be
heard in the matter.248 The effect of section 401(1) is that the High Court should exercise the
powers of a court of appeal which that court could exercise in an appeal legally entertainable by
it.249 Under section 401, the powers of an appellate court under section 386 are conferred only on
the High Court as a court of revision.250 Under sections 397 and 401, the High Court can in the
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, examine the records of cases for the purpose of satisfying itself
as to the correctness or propriety as well as the legality of any finding, sentence or order, and
where there are very exceptional grounds for its interference, it will, in the interests of justice,
exercise the powers of a court of appeal.251
The powers given to the High Court in revision are those conferred on a court of appeal amongst
others by section 386 of the Code. It can, therefore, exercise the powers enumerated infra. The
High Court in revision can make an order under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.252
Revisions filed against orders of appellate courts under section 341(1) should be dealt with by the
High Court under section 401 and not under section 115.253
(a) Examination of reasonable views.-When, in an appeal by the State against acquittal, the
records of the case are before the court and it has come to the knowledge of High Court that the
Addl. Sessions Judge has first convicted and sentenced the accused and then applied section 360,
which is wrong, the High Court can examine the two reasonable views regarding the incident,
conviction and order purporting to be under section 360 may be set aside and accused
acquitted.254 In revision the High Court can go into the question of marriage between parties even
though it is a question of fact in a proceeding under section 125, because the High Court in revision
may, under section 401(1), exercise powers in appeal.255
(b) Order under section 151.-An order passed under section 151 does not cease to be an order
passed under Cr.P.C. merely because it is in proceedings relating to detention, these proceedings
are proceedings within that the meaning of section 401. Any order passed in any proceedings under
the Cr.P.C., except when it is specifically barred such as interlocutory order is revisable by the High
Court under section 401.256
(c) Appeal where not allowed.-In cases where no appeal is allowed by the law, the High Court will
not in revision exercise the powers of an appellate court except on very exceptional grounds.257
(ii) High Court can hear revision as appeal.-Under section 401, the High Court can, in the
interest of justice, treat an application for revision made before the High Court as an appeal.258 An
accused is entitled to the judgment of an appellate court in every case in which an appeal is open
to him. But if the appellate court does not do its duty, his remedy lies in an application for revision
under section 401. It is true, the accused can approach the Sessions Judge for a reference to the
High Court under section 395, but in the end it is the High Court which deals with the matter, and
its powers are contained in section 401. Under that section the High Court may, if it desires,
exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by section 386, that is, it may itself hear
the appeal, and dispose it of. Moreover, an accused has no right to insist that his appeal should be
heard by any particular court. Under section 401, the High Court can transfer any appeal pending in
a lower court to itself for trial, provided it is expedient for the ends of justice to do so, and in that
case, the accused would be deprived of what he calls his right of revision. As a matter of fact,
there is no such right.
Interference in revision is purely discretionary, it is not even necessary to hear the accused. The
16/115
3/15/13
fact that he is invariably heard, and the fact that the discretion conferred by section 401 is
exercised in a judicial manner does not make any difference to the fact that the accused has no
right to demand any of these things. All that he is entitled to is that a second court of competent
jurisdiction should hear his entire case as an appeal. If he gets that, he has obtained all that the
law allows him, and when the High Court hears his appeal in place of a lower court, he has obtained
a good deal more than he had any right to claim.259 However, where the Sessions Judge has
wrongly dismissed an appeal on the ground of limitation, the High Court cannot in revision consider
the appeal on its merits. It is a matter for the appellate court.260
The revision cannot be treated as appeal, if the appeal, has long become barred by limitation.261
(iii) High Court can pronounce on correctness or otherwise of order.-The power of the High
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is very wide indeed and any order can be passed by
High Court appropriate in the circumstances of the case subject to the restriction that an order of
acquittal cannot be converted into an order of conviction. It is only, therefore, when an application
in revision is allowed by the High Court against the order of acquittal at the instance of a private
party that the High Court is obliged in law to remand the case. But in all other circumstances, the
High Court is competent to pass any order that might be passed by a court of appeal. When seized
of the matter in revision, the High Court can set aside an order if it is found improper or illegal and
pass a fresh order if the ends of justice so require.262 Hence, the High Court can pronounce on the
correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Magistrate under section 3 or 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.263
The criminal court has ample power and jurisdiction to call for production of documents, if it
considers that there is necessity or desirability of the production of the same at the stage of
enquiry and before the framing of the charge, but the accused cannot compel the provisions of
section 91, to be attracted. Where the request of the accused has not been rejected once for all,
but has been postponed to a later stage, the impugned order of the Magistrate is not illegal,
improper or unjust justifying interference of the High Court in revision.264 Where the court below has
not considered the question of bona fide claim of right of the accused, and the finding that the
accused entered into the property not with the dominant intention to intimidate, insult or annoy has
no intrinsic foundation unless based upon a bona fide claim of right, court below would be directed
to decide that question and dispose of the same.265
Where charges are framed under sections 420, 468 and 471 read with section 120-B, I.P.C. against
R where, as per prosecution case itself, R appears on the scene subsequent to the lodging of report
and High Court, in revision quashes charges framed against R, there is no cogent ground for
interference with the judgment of the High Court.266 Where the Magistrate has given a detailed
reason while issuing summons, the Sessions Judge would travel beyond the scope in assessing the
evidence in revision and setting aside the order of the Magistrate.267 No doubt it was desirable for
the petitioner to have waited till the notice was served upon him it does not bar him from coming to
High Court after he learnt somehow or other about the impugned order under section 202,
challenging it as illegal.268 There is no bar to a court while deciding a matter in exercise of its
revisional power to go into the correctness of the order or judgment under revision, even if a limited
rule has been issued.269 Where constables beat the victim to death during investigation and upon
the facts the Sessions Judge has framed charges under sections 302/24, I.P.C., there is no infirmity
in the order so as to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.270
(a) Scrutiny of evidence when revision admitted on question of sentence.-Even when the revision
has been admitted on the question of sentence only, the hands of the revisional court are not
fettered in scrutinising the evidence and to come to a conclusion whether the charge has been
established or not. In a revision petition where the legality of the impugned order itself is called in
question, the conviction and sentence of the non-petitioning accused cannot also be sustained
consistent with the findings in and the result of the revision petition and as the findings are
interdependent and inextricably integrated, conviction and sentence of non-petitioning accused
would also be liable to be set aside.271
(b) Essential Commodities Act.-The disabling provision of section 6-E of Essential Commodities Act
having overriding effect on the provisions of section 401, Cr.P.C. operates in a limited field and
during pendency of the confiscation proceeding under section 6-A of the Act or appeal under
section 6-E of the Act. When a final order is passed, in a confiscation proceeding or in appeal, such
17/115
3/15/13
an order is open to challenge to the High Court by way of revision.272

(iv) High Court can revise an order of acquittal under section 386(a).-Under this section, the
High Court has power to revise an order of acquittal made by any of the subordinate courts
exercising original or appellate jurisdiction.273 In the exercise of its revisional powers, the High Court
has power to revise an order of acquittal and to direct that further inquiry be made or that the
accused be retried or committed for trial.274 But this revisional jurisdic tion will be exercised
sparingly, and generally, in those cases only where there is an error of law and procedure patent on
the face of the judgment.275
(v) High Court reversing appellate order of acquittal may order retrial of appeal only.-Where
the defect discovered by the High Court is in the order under appeal, it has jurisdiction to interfere
with such order and order a retrial of the appeal only and not of the entire case.276 Where the trial
court has convicted the accused but the appellate court has committed an error in relying upon a
piece of inadmissible evidence, the High Court has the discretion to either order a retrial or send the
case back to the appellate court to rehear the appeal.277
(vi) Judge retrying case cannot go behind findings of fact on which retrial ordered.-When a
case is directed to be retried, the Judge re-trying it cannot go behind the findings of fact which
were accepted by all the courts and which were the basis on which a retrial was ordered.278
(vii) High Court precluded from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by
sub-section (3).-The High Court has jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and has no alternative but to order a retrial if it
is of opinion that order of acquittal is wrong.279 Under section 401(3), the High Court does not have
jurisdiction to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.280 Though negatively drafted
sub-section (3) of section 401 prohibits the High Court positively from converting the finding of
acquittal into one of conviction.281 In view of the embargo of section 401(3), the High Court cannot
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Only in cases of gross miscarriage of justice,
the High Court will be justified in sending back the matter to the trial court.282
In a case under section 304 I.P.C. Apex Court did not approve High Court's order of converting
acquittal into conviction that was based on reappraisal of evidence. In doing so Apex Court further
laid down that in exceptional cases like absence of jurisdiction, glaring illegalities and miscarriage of
justice interference was permissible.283
(viii) High Court can reverse conviction under section 386(b).-Under this section read with
section 386(b), the High Court, in the case of a conviction, can reverse the finding and sentence
and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried or committed for trial. Section 386
empowers an appellate court to pass an order of discharge, and, therefore, there is no reason why
the High Court should not in revision pass an order of discharge, if it considers such order to be in
the interests of justice.284
Where the standard of proof of a crime has not been kept in view by the courts below particularly
when the offence entails a prison term, a case for revision of the conviction is indicated.285 Where
the conviction is founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, which does not inevitably lead to an
interference of guilt of the accused, the mere circumstances that the accused did not stop the
truck despite being asked to do so by the Station House Officer or that huge quantity of opium was
recovered from the truck are not sufficient to maintain conviction.286
Where the Judicial Commissioner's court was exercising its powers under section 401 and had
perused all the records connected, it could exercise its revisional power not only in favour of the
petitioners who had moved the court, but in favour of all other convicted persons when it was found
that the entire conviction was wrong.287
As a general rule, when a revision is admitted on the point of sentence only, that aspect should be
dealt with. But if on examination, the facts and circumstances do not establish the guilt of the
petitioners, the court can examine the entire case on merits and pass suitable orders.288
(ix) High Court competent to set aside conviction where Magistrate ignores facts of
aggravated offence.-Where a prisoner is convicted by a subordinate tribunal of an offence within
18/115
3/15/13
its jurisdiction, and the evidence discloses an offence of a graver character beyond the jurisdiction
of the tribunal, the High Court may quash the conviction and sentence for the minor offence and
direct a trial before a tribunal having jurisdiction over the greater offence. Whether it will do so or
not is a question not of law, but expediency on the facts of the particular case.289 Where a
Magistrate convicts an accused of an offence falling within his jurisdiction though the facts found
would also constitute a more serious offence not within his jurisdiction, the High Court will not
ordinarily interfere unless the sentence appears inadequate or unless the accused has been deprived
of his right of appeal.290 The trial by the Magistrate of an accused for a less serious offence, when
the facts disclose a more serious offence which is beyond his competence, is not illegal and the High
Court is not bound to interfere in revision in such a case.291 But the High Court will set aside the
conviction of an accused where the Magistrate has tried him, by intentionally ignoring facts of
aggravation making the offence cognizable only by a superior court.292
Under section 401, the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal in revision
and to direct that the accused may be retried on the graver offence.293 Accused is convicted under
Essential Commodities Act ; on appeal Sessions Judge finds conviction and trial to be illegal but does
not order retrial.
Held, as mens rea is lacking in the case it will not be just for the High Court to interfere with the
orders of the Sessions Judge in revision.294
(x) Magistrate framing charge for lesser offence and passing unappealable sentence.-It is
the nature of the sentence which does or does not give a right of appeal, and it is hardly open to
accused persons to say that they should have been given a higher sentence so that they might
have a right of appeal. Where a Magistrate contents himself with framing a charge of an offence
under section 147, I.P.C., instead of under section 452, I.P.C., and passes an unappealable
sentence, the High Court will not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction in revision on the ground
that if the Magistrate had framed a charge under section 452, I.P.C., he would have been compelled
to pass an appealable sentence.295
(xi) High Court can set aside conviction of minor offence in appeal by State against acquittal
of major offence.-In an appeal by the State against his acquittal of the charge for a major
offence, the High Court has power under section 401(1), to acquit the accused where the facts
found are incompatible with his guilt even for the minor offence. In this connection, the powers of
the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401, are not trammelled by sub-section (4) which
only negatives the right of the accused to come up in revision when he could have preferred an
appeal.296
(xii) Loss of record no ground for acquittal.-Loss of record cannot be a ground for acquitting the
accused in revision.297 Where trial court's record is partially damaged because of an accidental trial,
grave injustice may follow if it is held that the trial court cannot re-examine those witnesses as
requested by the prosecution.298 Where the record was weeded out and reconstruction was not
possible, order of retrial was set aside in exercise of revisional power.299
(xiii) Anticipatory bail can be cancelled.-High Court has power to cancel anticipatory bail under
this section if the accused is found to have obtained such bail on false ground.300
18. Order for retrial
(i) Discovery of previous convictions of accused if ground for retrial.-The High Court cannot as
a court of revision set aside the conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate of competent
jurisdiction, with a view to directing a new trial, because subsequent to conviction, it becomes
known that the accused was previously convicted.301 Where evidence of the previous convictions
of the accused for a similar offence was not adduced at the trial, the High Court would refuse to
interfere in revision to order a new trial to enable the prosecution to supplement the record by
producing fresh evidence bearing on the question of punishment.302
Where the omission to record evidence of previous conviction is due to the neglect of the
Magistrate, the court is competent to interfere in revision and order a new trial.303 Where there
were previous convictions against the accused, and the Magistrate, without questioning or calling
for proof of those convictions convicted the accused and sentenced him, the High Court would
19/115
3/15/13
interfere in revision and set aside the conviction and sentence.304 Where a Magistrate omitted to
set out in his charge the previous convictions of the accused, the High Court, sitting in revision
would direct that the charge should be amended by adding the previous convictions and also direct
that evidence with regard to those convictions should be recorded.305 Where the charge did not set
out a previous conviction, on account of the accused giving a false name at the trial, the High
Court on revision, would set aside the conviction and order a new trial.306
(ii) No order for retrial to enable prosecution to fill up lacuna in evidence.-It will not be right to
allow the prosecution to shape its case afresh after the whole matter has been thrashed out and
the defect brought to light in the course of prolonged proceedings. No retrial should be ordered in
such a case.307 It is not open to the High Court sitting in revision to fill up the lacuna in the
prosecution case by allowing examination of witnesses who should have been examined by the
prosecution in the lower court. Where conviction by the trial court is based on unreliable evidence,
the judgement is vitiated. To remand the case to the trial court for fresh trial after lapse of nearly 4
years from the date of the alleged offence and thereby enable the prosecution to fill up the lacuna
in their evidence will be unfair to and even harassment of the accused.308
In a revision against a conviction, a retrial will not be ordered where the prosecution has failed to
produce the right type of evidence to sustain a conviction so as to allow them an opportunity to fill
up the lacuna in evidence.309 The onus is on the prosecution to prove the entire case at the trial
and, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps or
lacuna left at trial at the revisional stage.310 If there is any defect in the prosecution, it should not
be allowed to remove it by adopting the procedure of a retrial.
Where the plea of accused though in reality was one of not guilty and did not contain an admission
of truth of the accusation set out in summons but was wrongly treated as plea of guilty and
conviction and sentence given without examining prosecution witnesses, it was held that the
prosecution should have pointed out the error to the trial court and asked it to proceed with the
case and the prosecution not having done so, the case should not be sent back for retrial for giving
it an opportunity to prove the charge.311 Allegations made by prosecution against accused not
disclosing offence charged-Improper to order retrial so as to enable prosecution to supply
deficiencies in their original case by alleging and proving further facts.312
(iii) No order for retrial merely on disagreement with trial Judge as to offences constituted
by proved facts.-In the absence of any material irregularity in a trial in which all available evidence
was produced, an order of retrial would merely amount to an expression of dissatisfaction with the
result, and an order of retrial should not be given merely because the revisional authority disagrees
with the trial Judge as to the offences constituted by proved facts.313
(iv) No retrial in petty cases.-Where the sentences passed on the accused were imprisonment till
rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 15 or Rs. 20, it was held that in these circumstances ends of
justice did not require that the petitioners should be retried again.314
(v) Retrial when may be ordered.-In deciding the question whether a retrial should be ordered or
not, the court should bear in mind the harassment the accused had already gone through, the time
that has elapsed between the date of the commission of the offence and the date of the order of
retrial, the expenditure that might have been incurred by the defence as well as by the prosecution
and the nature of the evidence available against the accused with a view to find out whether in the
circumstances of the case there are valid reasons to order a retrial.315 Where material evidence has
been overlooked by the trial or appellate court, even in its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court may
order an appellate court to rehear the appeal or direct a retrial by the trial court.316
Where convicted persons have filed appeal and the State has not filed appeal, retrial can be ordered
of the accused who have appealed. But it is not in the interests of justice for the High Court to
issue notice to others under section 401 exercising suo motu powers contained therein.317 Where in
a prosecution for rash and negligent driving, in revision, the trial is found vitiated for non-compliance
with mandatory provision of section 273, but in view of the occurrence taking place more than 10
years back, it is not desirable to remand the case for fresh trial.318 When on the facts of the case,
the conviction of one of the accused who came in revision to the High Court is set aside, and where
there is no difference between the case of the accused who came in revision and the one who did
20/115
3/15/13
not, the conviction of the non- revisionist would also be set aside.319
It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law
by the trial court that the High Court is empowered in revision to set aside the order of acquittal
and direct a retrial of the accused.320 Where, instead of appointing a counsel amicus curiae when
the advocate of the accused does not appear, the Sessions Judge heard only the public prosecutor
and the appeal is disposed of on merits, on that score alone, the judgment dismissing the appeal is
liable to be set aside. But it is not proper that the accused should be made to face the ordeal of a
trial over again when the occurrence took place eight years back, the accused is acquitted of the
charge under section 379, I.P.C.321
Where the Magistrate closed the case and acquitted the accused for non-appearance of witnesses,
on revision against acquittal, as fresh trial will cause injustice to the accused who were present on
different dates during one and a half years and were acquitted long back, it will be just and proper
not to pass any order for fresh trial of the case and allow it to remain closed.322 Where the grounds
on the basis of which the trial court has acquitted the accused are not sustainable in law and it is
seen that the trial court has adopted faulty reasoning while acquitting the accused, in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction the High Court would set aside the order of acquittal and order retrial.323
(vi) Retrial where conviction set aside.-Where there was complete confusion in the mind of the
trial Magistrate regarding the charge against the accused and the accused was not properly tried
the ends of justice require that his conviction should be set aside and he should be retried in
accordance with law.324 Where the conviction of a lorry driver was set aside on the ground that the
offence being one under section 279, I.P.C., the trial which was initiated on a summons under
section 130(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was illegal, in view of the fact that damage had been
caused by the rash and negligent driving of the accused and also in view of the notorious
tendencies of lorry drivers to drive in a rash and negligent manner, the ends of justice required that
the accused should be put on the trial again for the offence under section 279, I.P.C. 325
Where the accused has not been examined under section 313, it is not an irregularity but an
illegality, trial having not been in a proper and legal manner. Normally the High Court in revision
would have remanded the case for retrial, but where the record of the entire case has been weeded
out, no useful purpose will be served by ordering retrial.326
Though the usual procedure to be followed in cases where an accused person has been convicted
on a trial which the appellate or revisional court considers to be unfair, improper or irregular, is to
set aside the conviction and order a fresh trial, it need not always be the rule that when a fresh
trial is not ordered, it amounts to a discharge of the accused.327
(vii) Technical offences.-Where it was found that a technical offence was committed by the
petitioner under section 170, I.P.C., and it was also found that the petitioner acted rather through
vanity than with any criminal intention, the High Court, after setting aside the conviction on the
ground of misjoinder of offences did not think it necessary to order further inquiry.328
19. Other powers of High Court
(i) Direction for re -hearing of appeal after obtaining additional evidence, subject to caution.The High Court has power to direct a Sessions Judge to re-hear an appeal after taking additional
evidence.329 Where the question before the High Court is whether the Sessions Judge while hearing
an appeal has committed a mistake in not taking evidence under section 428 and the High Court is
of the view that the Sessions Judge is wrong in not exercising his powers under section 428 and
examining certain additional evidence, the High Court can, under section 386(b)(1), order that the
accused be retried by the Sessions Judge i.e., his appeal be reheard and under section 386(e) direct
that the Sessions Judge should exercise his powers under section 391 and examine certain specified
witnesses.330 But the power to direct the taking of additional evidence under sections 391 and 401,
should not be exercised for the purpose of filling up gaps in the prosecution evidence.331
(ii) High Court can order committal.-When acting under section 401, the High Court has power to
order a committal for trial to a court of session after reversing the finding and sentence.332 The
High Court has power not only to order the accused to be tried but also to be committed for trial if
it appears to it that the accused was improperly discharged.333 Where the charge against the
21/115
3/15/13
accused was one of rape which is exclusively triable by a court of session and other minor offences,
and the Magistrate holding that the story of rape was an exaggeration tried and convicted the
accused for the other offences, the High Court would direct the committal of the accused to the
court of session as there was evidence which if believed would support the charge of rape.334
(iii) No direction for committal after expiry of sentence on ground of discovery of previous
convictions.-It is not fair to the accused to reverse the conviction and direct him to be committed
to the court of session, after he has undergone the full period of the sentence inflicted by the
Magistrate, because his previous convictions were not known at the time.335
(iv) Power to alter conviction.-Under section 401, the High Court has, as a court of revision,
power to alter a conviction for one offence into a conviction for another offence, at the same time
maintaining the sentence passed.336 It is open to the High Court to alter any finding and confirm a
conviction and if the evidence on the record is sufficient to warrant a conviction, the court would
not be justified in setting aside, merely because the view taken of the evidence by the lower court
is not sustainable or some fact which ought to have been found by that court is not found, or found
incorrect.337
On an application for alteration of conviction and enhancement of sentence, the High Court will not
interfere where the offence taken cognizance by the Sessions Judge though most favourable to the
accused is not clearly wrong.338
(a) Conviction under wrong section.-If the courts below have convicted an accused under wrong
section in a case in which no charge was framed, it is open to the High Court, if necessary, to
revise the section under which the conviction has been recorded without any further
proceedings.339
The High Court as a court of revision has the power of a court of appeal, and it is provided in
section 386(b)(ii) that a court of appeal has the power 'to alter the finding maintaining the
sentence'. It is, therefore, open to the High Court, when a case comes up before it in revision to
alter a finding under section 500, I.P.C., to one under section 500 read with section 120-B, I.P.C.340
Where an accused was convicted by a Magistrate for an offence exclusively triable by the court of
session, the chief court interfered in revision and altered the conviction to one for an offence triable
by the Magistrate.341 Where a person was convicted under section 186, I.P.C., but the facts show
that the conviction should be for an offence under section 225-B and all the material facts were
stated in the complaint and duly deposed to by the prosecution witnesses, the High Court may alter
the conviction into one under section 225-B.342 Under the combined provisions of sections 380 and
401, the High Court has power to alter a conviction under section 326, I.P.C., to one under section
302, I.P.C.343
(b) Principal offence and abetment.-Where, on precisely the same facts, charges might have been
framed both of the commission of the principal offence and of the abetment thereof, the case
comes within the purview of sections 386 and 221 and the High Court may in exercise of either its
appellate or revisional jurisdiction alter the conviction for the principal offence to one for abetment
thereof.344 But see undermentioned decision. Where a person has been convicted of the principal
offence under section 161, I.P.C., it is not open to the court of revision to alter the conviction into
one for abetment of the offence. The court can only order a retrial.345
(v) Power of altering conviction discretionary.-The discretion of the High Court in dealing with a
case under this section is a very wide one. If the facts established by the record do not justify the
conviction of the accused of the offence of which he has been convicted but justify his conviction
of a minor offence of a similar nature, it is within its discretion to convict him for the minor offence ;
but it is also within its discretion to refrain from doing so. It is a matter of judicial discretion to be
exercised in each case according to the view which the court may take of the requirements of
justice.346
(vi) Alteration of conviction when not proper.-A conviction for an offence for which a particular
set of facts is required to be proved cannot be converted into a conviction for an offence of which
quite different facts are the constituents. A conviction for cheating cannot be substituted in the
place of a conviction for theft which was subsequently found to be unsustainable.347 It would not
be fair in revision to alter a conviction under the Arms Act to one under the Explosives Act.348 The
22/115
3/15/13
High Court will not convert a conviction for possession of country liquor in excess of the quantity
prescribed, on its finding the evidence insufficient as to the total quantity possessed, into a
conviction for possession not lawfully obtained when the accused has not been charged with such
latter offence.349 The High Court cannot alter a conviction on a charge under section 498 only to a
conviction under section 366-A or section 373, as these offences are major offences.350
(vii) No conviction of accused of an offence of which he could not have been convicted in trial
court.-The ordinary rule is that, on appeal or revision, an accused person cannot be convicted of
an offence of which he could not have been convicted by the court which tried him.351
(viii) No alteration of finding of acquittal to one of conviction even where there is a
conviction.-Sub-section (3) says that nothing in the section shall be deemed to authorise a High
Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Prior to the judgment of the Judicial
Committee in 50 All 722 (PC), there was a divergence of judicial opinion as to the competency of the
High Court to convert an acquittal into a conviction, where an accused was convicted of one
offence and acquitted of another. According to one view, "acquittal" in sub-section (3) meant a
complete acquittal and discharge on all the allegations and facts charged, and not an acquittal on
one charge and a conviction on another.352 But a different view was taken by the Allahabad,
Bombay and Rangoon High Courts and by the Madras High Court in 50 Mad 259. Where a man was
charged with murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and was acquitted of murder
but convicted of the latter, the Allahabad High Court held that the High Court had no power in
revision to convert the acquittal into a conviction.353 The Bombay High Court has taken the same
view as that of Allahabad High Court. Where a man was convicted under section 323, I.P.C., on a
charge under section 326 it was held that the High Court would not convert the conviction into one
under section 326 as the order of the trial court amounted to an order of acquittal.354 The Rangoon
High Court has taken the same view as that Allahabad and the Bombay High Courts.355
In the Allahabad case, a man was charged with murder under section 302, but was convicted under
section 304 and the High Court of Allahabad acting in revision found him guilty of murder. The Privy
Council held the case as one which justified them in interfering, even though it was a criminal
matter, for they pointed out that section 401(3) forbade the altering of an acquittal into a
conviction in a revision proceeding. Their Lordships approved of the decisions in 44 All 332 and 48
Bom 510. This decision of the Privy Council was followed in 7 Rang 538 ; AIR 1929 Lah 615. Where a
charge under section 302, I.P.C., is followed by a conviction under section 304(2), I.P.C., the result
of the trial includes an acquittal under the major charge. The High Court has no jurisdiction in
revision to alter an acquittal into a conviction and cannot, therefore, consider the question whether
the accused is in fact guilty of murder.356 A conviction under section 165, I.P.C., of an accused
person who was charged under section 161, I.P.C., necessarily implies an acquittal under section
161, and the High Court has no jurisdiction in revision to alter the conviction from one under section
165 to one under section 161, I.P.C.357 When the accused are charged under section 325, I.P.C.,
but are convicted under a minor section, namely, section 323 of the same Code, the Magistrate
must be held to have acquitted them of the charge under section 325 and the High Court in revision
cannot alter the conviction into one under section 325.358 Though the High Court is precluded from
converting the finding of acquittal under section 302 into one of conviction under that section, it is
not precluded from convicting the accused under section 325 where they have been acquitted
under section 302 and convicted under section 323, I.P.C., without considering the applicability of
section 325.359
(ix) Interference with sentence with or without altering finding.-It is within the discretion of
the trial court to what extent, in the circumstances of a particular case, the punishment awarded
should approach or recede from the margin prescribed by the law ; and the discretion so vested in
the trial court cannot be legally interfered with by the High Court in revision, more so, when the
appellate court confirming the conviction and sentence has not considered it desirable to interfere
with the sentence. The High Court will not, therefore, interfere in the absence of sufficient grounds
to show that the discretion has been improperly exercised so as to call for interference.360 If
adequate and special reasons do not exist for award of lesser sentence, and have not been shown
to exist it is the duty of High Court to enhance the sentence in revision.361
In matter of sentence, there should be no interference when the sentence passed imposes
substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate.362 Where
23/115
3/15/13
the courts below have given non-judicial reasons for passing a severe sentence, the High Court
would reduce the sentence in revision.363 Where the High Court is satisfied that the subordinate
court has committed an illegality in the matter of awarding sentence, the proper course to be
adopted by the High Court is to interfere and set right the illegality by awarding a proper sentence
sanctioned by law.364 Even where a case is before the High Court on a reference, it is competent to
interfere with the sentence under section 401.365 The High Court may, in revision, remit the whole
of the punishment not undergone.366 In a revision against conviction and sentence under sections
325/34, I.P.C. because of defect in compliance of section 248(2), Cr.P.C. and incident having
become 8-1/2 years old, sentence was reduced to already undergone.367 The High Court could
order a single sentence to be substituted for two separate sentences passed on an accused by the
Magistrate.368 Where accused is convicted under Cattle Trespass Act and fined, when there is no
previous conviction, in revision the High Court can admit the accused to probation under section
360.369 K was convicted under the Arms Act and was sentenced to four month's rigorous
imprisonment on 19th September, 1930. On 11th October, 1930, he was again sentenced to four
years' rigorous imprisonment under section 243, I.P.C. On appeal, his conviction under the Arms Act
was quashed and he was acquitted on 15th January, 1931. It was held that under section 427, the
second sentence commenced on 15th January, 1931, the date of the accused's acquittal under the
first conviction. It was further held that equitable principles required that the period of imprisonment
already undergone under the first conviction should be deducted from the imprisonment
subsequently inflicted, and so the sentence of four years should to that extent be reduced in
exercise of the powers under section 401.370
In revision against enhancement of sentence, High Court's order of raising quantum of fine from Rs.
2,000 to Rs. 10,000 without assigning reasons, was not approved by Supreme Court.371
(a) Reconciliation.-In a revision, for the High Court to reduce the sentence on reconciliation of
parties, the High Court must be convinced that the reconciliation is the outcome of a genuine
realisation on the part of the accused that the life of violence and crime is bad.372
(b) Lengthy trial.-The High Court in revision can reduce the sentence in a case where the accused
has undergone lengthy trial on a point which is not free from doubt.373
(c) Old case.-On conviction of an offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful
Possession) Act, the lower appellate court imposed a sentence of 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.
500, where the minimum fine that can be imposed is Rs. 1,000. It has been held that as there is
nothing to show that the accused is a previous convict and also as the case has become old,
sentence of imprisonment is liable to be set aside but fine enhanced to Rs. 1,000.374
The complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of plea bargaining and then come to the
court and make grievance that the sentence imposed is less than the minimum.375
(d) Conviction unsustainable.-Where the accused do not challenge the order of conviction in appeal
and only pray for reduction in sentence, normally it will not be proper for the High Court in revision
to interfere with the order of conviction. But where there is no material on the basis of which
conviction could have been recorded, the conviction recorded is unsustainable and must be set
aside.376 While dismissing revision petition and confirming the conviction, the High Court can reduce
the sentence of R.I. but impose a fine which will not amount to enhancement of sentence.377
(e) Right of accused to plead for acquittal.-While it is competent for the High Court in revision to go
into the question of legality and correctness of the findings on which the conviction itself is based,
the accused is also entitled to plead for his acquittal.378
(f) No reduction of sentence below minimum.-Where the statute prescribes a minimum sentence
and does not provide for any exception, the High Court is in error in reducing the sentence to less
than minimum permissible.379
The conviction in the instant case was for possession of opium and pistol, the recovery was
effected in 1983, the accused was undergoing part sentence. The sentence was reduced to one
already undergone.380
(g) Mental torture and harassment.-Where the revision petition against conviction and sentence
24/115
3/15/13
under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was pending for 8 years, the petitioner was facing mental
torture and harassment. The sentence was reduced to one already undergone while maintaining the
conviction.381
(x) Power to order sentences passed in different cases to run concurrently.-The High Court
can order sentences passed in two different cases against the same accused to run concurrently in
exercise of its powers under section 482 read with section 397 and section 427(1).382
20. Power to interfere with orders
(i) Power to alter or reverse order under section 386(d).-Under section 401, the High Court has
the powers conferred on a court of appeal by section 386 to alter or reverse an order of the lower
court.383 The High Court has in revision the same powers which the court of appeal has in the case
of an appeal from any order against which an appeal is preferred under the Code.384 Under section
401, the High Court can review the correctness, legality or propriety of any order.385 However,
when the Magistrate could make an order if necessary, whether that order was not the best that
could have been made, is not a question to be considered in revision.386
(a) Admissibility of evidence.-The order of the trial court regarding admissibility of the evidence and
statements under section 25 of Evidence Act and section 162, Cr.P.C. may be regarded as
procedural and the High Court cannot interfere with it on those grounds, but when the objection to
the admissibility of the statement under article 20(3) of the Constitution has been raised, this point
may be permitted to be argued.387
(b) Order framing charges.-If the order framing charges is in any way wrong and not borne out from
the papers produced in the court, the prosecution could have gone in revision before the High
Court. It is not open to the prosecution to request the High Court to revise the charge by examining
the Medical Officer at the stage when application is given by the parties under section 320(2) and
order of acquittal passed under section 320(8) cannot be said to be illegal in any way or
improper.388
(c) Remand order.-Where the accused is convicted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and
on appeal, case is remanded for retrial and accused convicted again. On appeal the case is again
remanded it has been held that the accused must have undergone considerable expense, tension
and harassment during 7 years that the trial has been pending, it will clearly be unjust and
prejudicial to permit him to undergo all this any further. The judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge
remanding the case is set aside, the petitioner is acquitted and revision accepted.389
(ii) Section 82-Illegality with respect to proclamation-High Court's power.-Apart from the
provisions of section 482 which may or may not be capable of being invoked according to the
exigencies of a particular case, the High Court has ample jurisdiction under section 401 to pass a
suitable order having regard to the illegality with respect to a defective proclamation under section
82 brought to its notice and going to the very root of the matter.390
(iii) Section 91-Order under.-See Notes under section 91, supra.
(iv) Order under section 97.-Order of the Magistrate issuing search warrant under section 97 is on
subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate which cannot be lightly interfered with at revisional stage
unless a very strong ground is made out.391
(v) Proceedings under section 107.-The High Court has power to entertain a revision petition
against an order dismissing an application for proceeding under section 107. It can even straightway
direct that proceedings be taken against a person for keeping the peace.392 Against the very initial
order drawing up a proceeding under section 107 and calling upon the other side to show cause, a
revision can be filed on the ground that specifications as required under the law are not indicated in
the order.393 However, it is entirely for the Magistrate to form his independent opinion whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding under section 107 and ordinarily there will be no
interference with the same by the High Court.394
The High Court can in revision exempt the personal attendance of the accused in cases pending
before the lower court or direct the lower court to grant such exemption, when such courts have
refused do so.395
25/115
3/15/13
(vi) Order under section 116.-Although in the case of an emergency order under section 116, a
court in revision is not in a position as is the Magistrate to understand the emergency and necessity
for the order and will not substitute its own opinion for that of the Magistrate, yet the order of the
Magistrate must have a legal basis, though proceedings under Chapter VIII are only of a quasijudicial nature. Where the order is without legal basis, the High Court can interfere in revision.396
Where the order purports to be a final order under section 117 and yet is described as one made
under section 116 without having come to a decision that the title is on the side of the applicant
and the non-applicants unjustifiably obstructed him in exercise of his right to remove fruits, the
Magistrate cannot justifiably pass an order binding over the non-applicants. Proceedings, and order
of the Magistrate are vitiated resulting in miscarriage of justice.397
(vii) Order under section 118 discharging accused.-Though the order of a Magistrate passed
under section 118 discharging an accused can be challenged in revision, the High Court will not go
into the merits of the case unless there is something to show that there has been a material
departure from the legal principles according to which the case ought to have been dealt with or
something extraordinary about the facts. The mere fact that there was a conflict of opinion
between the trial Magistrate and the District Magistrate as to the value to be attached to the
evidence is not a sufficient ground for interference.398
(viii) Order rejecting sureties under section 121.-The High Court has got ample power of its own
motion to interfere in cases where it is satisfied that the lower court was wholly wrong in the
exercise of its discretion upon the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the security offered before
him, specially when such interference is called for upon the plainest considerations of fair play and
justice.399
(ix) Order under section 123.-An order passed under section 123 can be questioned in revision
before the High Court under section 401.400
(x) Order under section 138.-The High Court has power not only to confirm an order under section
138 but also to modify it.401
(xi) Order under section 144.-Where two months have elapsed after making of order under
section 144, after which the order is no longer in force and that apart a title suit has been
instituted and an injunction issued by the civil court which is in force, the criminal revision against
suspension of operation of order under section 144 has become infructuous.402 Where the Addl.
District Magistrate, when presented with an application for action under section 144 does not seem
to have realised that he was called upon to act judicially, the High Court must, in exercise of powers
under section 401 direct the Addl. District Magistrate to discharge his duty under Cr.P.C. and
dispose of the application in accordance with section 144.403
(xii) Order under sections 145 to 148.-In the absence of a clear plea amounting to a denial
regarding the existence of breach of peace, either in courts below or even in revision before the
High Court, a final order under section 145 cannot be revised.404 Where there is dispute of
possession and there is likelihood of breach of peace, and the Magistrate is satisfied that to avoid
breach of peace the property has to be placed under attachment, the filing of the civil suit need not
deter the Magistrate from pursuing his course of action and the High Court will not be justified in
interfering in revision at this stage with the order of the Magistrate.405 Exercise of jurisdiction under
section 144(5) is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the powers of the High Court under
section 401.406
(a) Attachment of property.-Where the District Magistrate passes a preliminary order under section
145 on being satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of peace and also passes an order attaching
the property, the revisional court will not interfere with these orders unless it is satisfied that the
power has been exercised by the Magistrate in an arbitrary or capricious manner.407 It is foreign to
the scope of revision application for canvassing the question whether or not emergency existed at
the time when the attachment order was passed by the Magistrate under section 145. The order
appointing an agent to look after the property is only a consequential direction for giving effect to
the attachment order.408 Attachment in proceedings under section 145 is always pending final
decision and if the Magistrate thinks that in respect of a portion of the property no emergency
exists, he can cancel the attachment order in respect of that portion. Such an order need not be
interfered in revision.409
26/115
3/15/13
(b) Civil court's finding.-The civil court's finding on a reference under section 146 is not assailable in
a criminal revision against the final order of the Magistrate passed in a proceeding under section 145
in conformity with the decision of the civil court. A criminal revision is, however, maintainable
against the final order on other grounds as might arise in the facts and circumstances of a particular
case.410 The High Court revising the order of the Magistrate under section 146 on the ground that
the finding of the civil court is incorrect will mean assuming jurisdiction in a matter in the face of a
statutory denial of jurisdiction.411 The finding given by the civil court in pursuance of the provisions
of section 146 is a finding of a court of civil jurisdiction and not subject to the jurisdiction of a
criminal court and cannot be set aside in revision.412 If the order of the Magistrate under section
145 is in conformity with the decision of the civil court, the High Court has no jurisdiction to
interfere under section 401. The High Court has no power under section 401 to interfere with the
finding of the civil court regarding possession in a reference under section 146.413
(c) Order for deposit of amount.-Order of the Magistrate, during pendency of proceedings under
section 145 to one party to deposit certain amount on the basis of a document relating to the lease
of the disputed land is an administrative order and cannot be revised by the High Court.414
(d) No going into sufficiency of material.-The High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,
will not go into the question of sufficiency of material which has satisfied the Magistrate to initiate
proceedings under section 145.415 Where an order is in conformity with section 145 in exercise of its
revisional powers, the High Court cannot weigh the sufficiency of the material which satisfied the
Magistrate.416
(e) Preliminary order.-In the preliminary order under section 145, the Magistrate should state the
grounds of his being satisfied that there is a likelihood of breach of peace. This vitiates not only the
preliminary order but the entire following proceedings.417 An irregular preliminary order under section
147, if not challenged in revision, cannot be assailed in a revision filed against the final order,
especially when there is nothing to establish that the party has been prejudiced by the alleged
irregularity in the preliminary order.418
An order for disposal of the sale proceeds of crop on a property in dispute falls under section 145(8)
and the proper remedy against such an order is a revision.419 Where the Magistrate has rightly
arrived at the conclusion regarding possession, his order under section 145 is not vitiated by any
error in procedure or wrong view of the law. The High Court will not interfere with the order in
revision.420
(f) Signature of the party.-While it is proper that signature of the party and not the counsel should
be obtained on the application for action under section 145, in order to make the party answerable,
but failure to do so, is neither a flagrant violation of law resulting in miscarriage of justice, nor an
error so manifest as to warrant an interference by the High Court in revision.421
(g) Special rules.-Rules 15 and 22 of the Administration of Justice Rules North Cachar Hills District do
not enable the High Court to call for the proceedings under those rules in a case of the nature of a
proceeding under section 145, as such section 401 is out of the way.422
(h) Interference.-The proceedings under section 145 are purely of a summary nature and it is only
very rarely that the High Court interferes with the orders under that section unless the orders on
the face of it appear to have been passed by the Magistrate not in conformity with the provisions
laid therein.423 Where out of 21 revision petitioners only two persons were arrayed as second party
in proceeding under section 145, the revision petition by those who were not arrayed as second
parties is incompetent, even that, the petition by the two persons who were second party has to
be considered.
(i) Order of possession of disputed land.-Where the Magistrate after considering all the materials on
record has declared possession of the disputed land in favour of a party and there is no illegality
committed by the Magistrate in arriving at the findings, there is no reason for the High Court to
interfere in revision with the Magistrate's order.424
Where, on the materials, the court below is right in concluding that none of the parties were in
possession of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order and proceedings under section 145
cannot be initiated in a case where the property is joint family property and parties are not in joint
27/115
3/15/13
possession, there is no infirmity to call for interference by the High Court in revision.425 In a
proceeding under section 145, finding as to whether the first party or the second party was in
exclusive possession cannot be interfered with in revision under section 401.426 Where no illegality
or mispropriety has been committed by the Magistrate holding one party to be in possession of
disputed land while passing order under section 145, assuming that another view is possible, that
cannot be a ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.427
(j) Ex parte order.-An order under section 145 passed ex parte cannot be set aside by the High
Court in revision only on the ground that the order is not appended with the witnesses' names or
the documents filed in the enquiry.428
(k) Death of petitioner.-A proceeding under section 145 cannot but be a criminal proceeding though
not a criminal prosecution or a criminal trial and the High Court's power of revision remains
unaffected by the death of the petitioner.429
(l) Examination of admissibility of evidence.-Though, the High Court cannot go into sufficiency of
materials to proceed under section 145, it has power to examine the admissibility of evidence on the
basis of which finding is arrived at by the trial court.430
(xiii) Order under section 164.-Where refusal by the Magistrate to record a statement under
section 164 will not in any manner affect the enquiry or trial, revisional court should not entertain an
application for revision.431
(xiv) Jurisdiction under section 181-Nebulous State of facts-Interference in revision.-Where
there was no certainty as to the facts whether the money was dishonestly disposed of or
misappropriated at the place where the person was to account for the same and the prosecution
was carried on at the latter place, the High Court would refrain from interfering with the prosecution
.432
(xv) Order under section 202.-Where a Magistrate considers that before issuing process against
the person complained against, he should make further inquiries, interference by the High Court on
the petition by either party for stay of the proceedings would obviously be uncalled for.433
(xvi) Defence plea.-A defence plea based on any exception to section 499, I.P.C. cannot be
considered by the Magistrate at the stage of enquiry under section 202 as such, such plea cannot
be considered by the High Court in revision.434
(xvii) Order dismissing complaint under section 203.-Whether a dismissal of a complaint is
treated as one under section 203 or as one of discharge, the High Court in the exercise of its
powers of revision has ample power to see whether further inquiry was justified or not.435 Where a
complaint was dismissed for want of personal knowledge, on the part of complainant, of the
circumstances alleged in the complaint, the High Court will in revision direct a Magistrate to allow
the complainant to bring forward evidence to prove his allegations.436 Where a complaint of an
offence has been dismissed by two courts, the High Court can interfere in a proper case and direct
the complaint to be enquired into.437 Where in a complaint under the Madras District Municipalities
Act, the case was adjourned and the notice was not served on the complainant because of his
absence from the place and the complaint was dismissed, the dismissal does not amount to acquittal
and the High Court has power to interfere in revision.438
(a) No lightly interference with discretion.-But when the lower court has used its discretion in
dismissing a complaint, though there might be something which can be used against that order, if
there is as much to be said in it favour, the discretion of the lower court in dismissing the complaint
should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate court. Jurisdiction in revision is not lightly to be
exercised.439
(b) Second complaint.-The High Court should not interfere where the Magistrate entertained a
second complaint on the same facts after the first complaint was summarily dismissed.440 The
Magistrate having been informed by the complainant that an application for transfer has been made
in the court of session, it would have been better exercise of judicial discretion for the Magistrate to
stay the proceedings and not to dismiss the complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C.441
(xviii) Order under sections 202 and 204.-Where after an inquiry or investigation under section
28/115
3/15/13
202, the Magistrate issues process under section 204, supra, the High Court will not ordinarily
interfere with the details of an inquiry or investigation under section 202 and particularly will not do
so on the ground that it was inadequate.442
Where the original complaint was against 35 persons but the Magistrate issued summons only to 23
of them on the ground that there was sufficient ground to proceed only against them, the High
Court will not interfere at that stage with the order of the Magistrate directing issue of summons
under section 204.443
In cases which appear to be triable exclusively by court of session, before proceeding to take action
under section 204, the Magistrate has to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and
examine them on oath, and, therefore, where the order directing issuance of process suffers from
fundamental legal defect, the High Court will be fully justified in interfering with such order.444
(xix) No quashing of proceedings.-Where the complainant makes out an offence, the Magistrate
has jurisdiction and competence to issue process and it will be premature at this stage to quash the
proceedings.445 Where the order of the Magistrate for issuance of process under section 204 cannot
be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity, it cannot be interfered by the High Court in
revision.446
(xx) Orders under section 205.-Where a Magistrate has refused to excuse the personal
attendance of a pardanashin lady, the High Court will interfere in a proper case.447
(xxi) Section 223-Wrong exercise of discretion.-Section 223 confers a discretion upon a
Magistrate to try persons accused of an offence before him either jointly or separately. That is clear
from the expression "may" which appears in section 223. But, at the same time, it cannot possibly
be disputed that the discretion vested in the trying Magistrate is to be exercised by him judicially,
and according to certain well-established principles. Where the trial court has judicially exercised
the discretion vested in it, the High Court will not interfere.448 Although a joint trial may be
permitted by Cr.P.C. of an accused for two offences, it is neither illegal nor irregular to hold
separate trials : hence no interference in revision is called for.449 But where the trial court has not
exercised its discretion judicially, but in an arbitrary way, it is competent for the High Court to
interfere.450
(xxii) Misjoinder of persons-Interference.-Where the trial is vitiated by non-compliance with the
provisions of the Cr.P.C., as regards the mode of trial (e.g.) joinder of several persons in the same
trial in circumstances not covered by section 223, the High Court must necessarily interfere, even
sitting as a revisional court. Revisional jurisdiction under section 401, is undoubtedly, discretionary in
its nature, but that discretion has to be exercised on judicial principles. If there has been no trial in
the eye of law, the court must necessarily step in to set right the wrong and quash the conviction
and sentence recorded at the trial, irrespective of the question of prejudice to the accused.
The question of prejudice would be more pertinent to a case of irregularity than to cases of this
kind. If the case is of a trivial nature, or the harassment caused to the accused by the illegal trial is
deemed sufficient punishment for him in the circumstances of that case, no retrial need be ordered
but in other cases, a retrial would be necessary.451
(xxiii) Orders under section 250.-See Note under section 250, supra.
Where, in spite of adequate materials for framing charges against an accused, there will be grave
miscarriage of justice if the Magistrate wrongly discharges the accused under section 239.452
(xxiv) Non-compliance with section 244, supra.-Refusal to summon witness, whom the
complainant has cited even before the evidence for prosecution has begun, is a grave error on the
part of the Magistrate trying a case, as it is a breach of the duty enjoined by section 244.453
(xxv) Order refusing to recall witnesses under section 246.-Where a Magistrate refuses to recall witnesses for the prosecution for purpose of cross-examination, the error is one which can be
corrected by the High Court in revision.454
(xxvi) Order refusing to summon witnesses under section 247.-A good case is made out, that
the Magistrate's refusal to summon witnesses under section 247 is outside the limits of reasonable
discretion and the High Court should and would interfere.455 Omission to examine important defence
29/115
3/15/13
witnesses without sufficient cause is a good ground for revision.456

(xxvii) Order of commitment under section 306.-See Note under section 306.
(xxviii) Order granting or refusing adjournment under section 309.-In some circumstances a
mere order of adjournment may amount to an error of law, for example, an adjournment for an
unreasonably long period or an adjournment for a reasonable period but after a number of
adjournments where the position is that the last adjournment though not unreasonable in itself
becomes cumulatively with the preceding adjournments unreasonable. But if there is nothing legally
wrong with the order qua order of adjournment, the High Court will not interfere in revision with the
order.457
An accused person is entitled to have an adjournment of his case, so as to enable him to secure the
services of a pleader, whom he wants to engage for the purpose of cross-examining the prosecution
witnesses. So, where a Magistrate refused in such a case to give time, the High Court would stay
the proceedings and direct the Magistrate to re-summon the prosecution witnesses for crossexamination by the accused or his counsel.458 The High Court has power to revise an order passed
by a Magistrate under section 309 granting an adjournment conditional on payment of costs.459 The
order of the criminal court directing an accused to pay costs for adjournment under section 309
pending his application under section 526 is obviously improper and is liable to be set aside by the
High Court in revision.460 With the order of adjournment amounting to error of law interference by
High Court is justified.461
(xxix) Order under section 309, refusing stay of proceedings.-The High Court will not ordinarily
interfere with an order of a Magistrate refusing to stay criminal proceedings before him pending the
disposal of a civil suit, if he has exercised a judicial discretion.462 Where the bad livelihood
proceedings have been pending for an inconsiderably long time mainly due to the fault of the
accused and where a murder has taken place because the murdered persons were witnesses in the
bad livelihood case, the High Court will not interfere in revision to stay proceedings in the case and
to order that the two cases-bad livelihood case and murder case-should not go on together.463
(xxx) Order under section 319.-Apart from section 319, the court has the power to summon
additional accused and the impugned order doing so is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction under section 401.464 If at all there is any necessity an order under section
319 ought to be passed at a proper stage and not at the time of pronouncing judgment and that
too after the trial consumed a period of 17 years. The impugned order betrays the concept of fair
trial and it is difficult to sustain it.465
(xxxi) Order under section 326.-Under the proviso to section 326, a wide discretion is given to
the succeeding Magistrate if it is so necessary in his opinion in the interest of justice to recall and
examine witnesses afresh. Therefore, in the same circumstances, the High Court acting in its
revisional powers can form an opinion, or exercise discretion, in the matter of calling or not calling
witnesses afresh.466
(xxxii) Order of attachment under section 421.-Under the old section it was held that no revision
lay against the order of attachment issued under it, as there was no provision for the trial of claims
which might be preferred to property distrained.467 It is submitted that as the present section 421
provides for summary determination of claims, orders under the section are open to revision.
Section 421 does not completely debar the court from realising the fine, if the person convicted has
already served out the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine. What it requires is that in
such cases, no court shall issue distress warrant unless for special reasons to be recorded in
writing, it considers, it necessary to do so. Where the reasons given by the Sessions Judge are
relevant, the High Court, sitting in revision, will not lightly interfere with the discretion exercised by
the Sessions Judge.468
(xxxiii) Order summarily rejecting appeal under section 384.-The High Court can, as a court of
revision, set aside an order rejecting an appeal summarily without inspection of the record, and
direct the appellate court to peruse the proceedings of the first court before passing final orders on
the appeal.469 The propriety of an order dismissing an appeal summarily under section 384, without
giving the appellant's pleader an opportunity of being heard after the records are sent for, is subject
30/115
3/15/13
to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.470 Where the evidence on record was insufficient to
support a conviction, the High Court in revision, set aside an order by the Sessions Judge summarily
rejecting the appeal, and remanded the case for re-hearing on the merits.471
Filing of a copy of judgment after dismissal of appeal is a totally insufficient ground for revising the
appellate court's order of dismissal.472
(xxxiv) Order of retrial under section 386.-Where a Sessions Judge ordered a retrial for no
sufficient reasons, the High Court would interfere and set aside the order in revision.473 When, on
appeal from convictions under sections 6 and 7 of the Madras Town Nuisances Act, 1889, the
Magistrate after finding that there was no evidence that the house where gaming was carried on
was a common gaming house, orders a retrial in absence of an assurance of the prosecution that
such evidence would be forthcoming, such order was irregular and the High Court would interfere in
revision.474
(xxxv) Order of commitment under section 386.-The High Court is competent to exercise the
powers of an appellate court conferred by section 386(d) and reverse or alter an order of
commitment passed by a Sessions Judge under section 386(b).475
(xxxvi) Order under section 398 directing further enquiry.-See Note under section 398.
(xxxvii) Orders under sections 328 and 329.-Under section 401, the High Court can set aside
proceedings in which the Magistrate has not followed the provisions of sections 328 and 329,
supra.476
(xxxviii) Orders under section 340.-See Notes under sections 340(1) and 341(1), supra.
In case of an order passed under section 340 by a civil or revenue court, section 401 has no
application as those courts are not inferior criminal courts.477
No revision is maintainable against an order dismissing application filed under section 340 in view of
the remedy of appeal available under section 341.478 Revision against order dismissing the
application under section 340 is not maintainable in view of the remedy of appeal being available
under section 341.479
(xxxix) Order under section 345(1).-In an application for revision of the petitioner's conviction
and sentence of Rs. 50 fine for contempt of court under section 401, where it appeared that the
petitioner used a highly improper expression within the precincts of the court, it was held that for
the reasons given when directing notice to be issued, the case appeared to be one in which
discharge of the offender with a warning would have sufficiently met the requirements of sections
345 to 348.480
(xl) Orders under section 125.-When an exception has to be made in the ordinary rule making the
maintenance under section 125 payable from the date of application, the order must be supported
by reasons. Where no reason has been assigned for making maintenance payable from the date of
application, the order is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed in revision.481
(a) Section 126 where no bar.-Where on the face of the record itself an aggrieved petitioner can
show any illegality in the procedure or impropriety in exercise of any power of the Magistrate, there
is no bar for such petitioner to straightaway file revision petition in the High Court without first
moving an application before the Magistrate under section 126. Even though the revision has been
filed by the husband challenging the correctness of the order of the Magistrate under section 125,
when certain other irregularities have come to light at the instance of wife, the High Court is
empowered to rectify those mistakes in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.482 In a revision petition
by husband against order of maintenance of wife of Rs. 40 per month, there is no scope of
interference in view of the too meagre quantum of maintenance allowance.483
(b) Objection to jurisdiction.-Where the father ordered to pay compensation under section 125(i)(b)
to minor son does not challenge the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to pass the impugned order in
lower courts, he cannot at the stage of revision be allowed to take up this objection of jurisdiction.
Even if allowed, a revision court is not meant for interfering with the impugned order merely on
technicalities.484
31/115
3/15/13
(c) Ex parte order.-Where the petitioner is already pursuing his remedy under proviso to section
126(2) for setting aside ex parte order of maintenance, a revision application is untenable.485
However, an ex parte order of maintenance, in absence of proper service of summons on the party
saddled with the maintenance, is bad being not in accordance with procedure established by law
and liable to be set aside in revision.486 An order of enhancement of the award of maintenance
without the husband having an opportunity of being heard amounts to making a prejudicial order
against him in violation of the provisions of section 401(2) and is bad in law.487 Further, in view of
the failure of husband to have applied under section 126 to the Magistrate against ex parte order of
maintenance made under section 125, the husband cannot come in revision against the maintenance
order.488
(d) Finding on income.-In a proceeding under section 125, the finding of fact of income of father by
the Magistrate cannot be interfered with when evidence has been properly considered and analysed
unless petitioner shows that there is grave illegality or manifest injustice done by the court
below.489
(e) No interference with amount of maintenance.-The High Court will not interfere in revision with
the amount of maintenance awarded by the Magistrate under section 125 unless it is grossly
inadequate.490
(f) Joint award of maintenance.-A joint award of maintenance to wife and three children is not
within the contemplation of section 125. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 401,
the necessary amendment can be made by the High Court.491
(g) Interference when?-The proceedings under section 125 are summary in nature. The High Court
will ordinarily interfere with orders under section 125 only if court below has failed to exercise its
discretion judicially.
(h) Documents.-In maintenance proceedings documents in possession of the husband but not
produced by him during the course of maintenance proceedings, are not to be admitted by the High
Court at revisional stage.492
(i) Paltry amount of maintenance.-The award of a paltry amount of Rs. 19 as maintenance in 1957
is extremely inadequate to sustain the lady at the present time. If the income of the husband has
increased considerably, it is but just and proper that the maintenance of the wife should also be
reasonably increased. Where the Magistrate could not enhance the maintenance allowance, there
being no material before him, the Magistrate should have asked the parties to adduce evidence on
this score.493
(xli) Order under section 321.-A revision petition against the order giving consent to withdrawal
from prosecution is maintainable by the complainant even if the case has been charge-sheeted by
the police.494 However, where the court below has given good reasons for withholding consent for
withdrawal from prosecution by asstt. public prosecutor, there is no ground for the High Court to
interfere in revision.495 An order of acquittal or discharge passed under section 321 on withdrawal of
public prosecutor is a judicial order and liable to revision by the High Court if the discretion to give
consent has been improperly or arbitrarily exercised by the Magistrate.496 Giving or withholding the
consent to the withdrawal from the prosecution is judicial act and the discretion under section 321
must be exercised judicially. Ordinarily the High Court is reluctant to interfere with the discretion
given, but undoubtedly has power to do so, and will do so in special circumstances where the
withdrawal appears to be manifestly improper.497
(xlii) Bail orders under section 437.-While deciding the question of release of accused on bail, the
court has to consider whether there will be scope for fair trial. If by any act, the scope of fair trial
is curtailed, the High Court in revisional powers can interfere.498 Issue of search warrant by Asst.
Commissioner in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
though not issuable under Cr.P.C., is valid under section 23(1)(b) of the Act, and no revision under
Cr.P.C. lies.499 Where Magistrate has granted bail to the accused in Magisterial custody, the
Magistrate has exercised his independent powers under Cr.P.C. which cannot be interfered with in
revision.500
(xliii) Orders under section 440 or section 449.-Sections 397 and 401 empower High Courts to
32/115
3/15/13
revise orders passed by Magistrates under section 440 infra, or by the courts under section 449
infra, and to reduce the amount of the penalty.501 The powers of revision conferred on the High
Court by sections 401 and 386(d) are not taken away by the power of revision given to the
Sessions Judge by section 449, infra.502 An order directing forfeiture of bond without giving an
opportunity of showing cause by adducing evidence, is bad and should be set aside.503
(xliv) Orders under section 451.-See Notes under section 451.
(xlv) Orders under section 452.-It is true that section 452 does not require issue of any notice,
but when an application is made after some lapse of time, then it is only proper on general principles
of law that the party affected by the proposed order should have notice of the application.504
Even if an appeal does not lie under section 454, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court as a
superior court to the Magistrate is always there.505 Unless it is clear that the court below has
exercised the discretion under section 452 on some wrong principle and that it ordered custody of
property with somebody who has no claim or title to it, the High Court will not interfere in
revision.506
(xlvi) Orders under section 456.-Under section 401, the High Court can as a court of revision
exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal under sections 386, 389, 390 and 391
and as such may make any amendment or any incidental or consequential order that may be just or
proper. Where the order of delivery of possession is set aside under section 456, direction to restore
possession to the petitioner is incidental or consequential order.507 In a composite revision petition
directed against conviction as well as order of restoration of property under section 456, the
revision petition is maintainable even after the point of conviction and sentence is not pressed.508
(xlvii) Orders under section 457.-On a proper case being made out, a High Court has jurisdiction
to examine orders passed under section 457, infra.509 Where a Magistrate who has refused to take
proceedings under section 144, supra, considered that, having refused to take proceedings under
that section he was not competent to investigate the question as to who was in possession of the
property seized by the police and has, therefore, directed the police to retain it in their custody,
and if it was liable to decay, to sell it, and deposit the money in safe custody pending orders from a
proper court, the High Court would interfere with his order as he has not judicially exercised the
discretion which section 457 confers on him. The Magistrate ought in such a case to exercise the
discretion conferred on him by section 457, that is, if the Magistrate decides that one or other of
the parties was in possession at the time the police seized the property, the proper order to be
passed would be to restore that party to possession. If the Magistrate is unable to decide who is in
possession, it would be his duty to issue a proclamation under section 457 and proceed in
accordance with the provision of that sub-section.510
(xlviii) Orders under sections 408-412.-The High Court can under section 401 and section 386(d)
set aside an illegal order of transfer made by an inferior court under sections 408-412.511 The High
Court's powers of revision under section 401 are very wide and are not limited to those specified
thereunder. Section 401 merely describes some of the reliefs which the High Court may grant and is
in no way exhaustive.
The High Court has power to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of any order passed by a
subordinate criminal court including an order of transfer made by an inferior court under sections
408-412, such an order falls within the purview of the words "of any other order" in section 401, and
the High Court can in revision set aside an order of transfer and retransfer the case and it cannot
be said that in doing so, the High Court purports to act under section 407.512 But it is a matter of
discretion with the Judge to transfer a case and unless it is shown in the High Court that grave
injustice is caused, ordinarily the High Court will not interfere in the exercise of an undoubted
discretion.513 The High Court will not interfere in revision with an order of transfer passed by a Chief
Judicial Magistrate suo motu under section 410, giving good reasons, although such an order was
passed without hearing the accused's counsel.514
An order of transfer of a case was ordered without notice to other side and without assigning
reasons for the order. The order was made on account of alleged abnormal delay, but it was not
likely that the case would proceed more quickly in the new court. It was held that the order for
want of notice and being without reasons, although irregular, might not be illegal, but the High Court
33/115
3/15/13
could interfere with it in revision and that it should be set aside and the other side given chance to
advance objections.515 It is not, however, the practice of the High Court to interfere with an order
under section 410 made by a lower court in the exercise of its jurisdiction save on exceptional
grounds.516 Where a District Magistrate in ordering the transfer of a case to his own file had
complete jurisdiction to do so, the High Court would not interfere with his order even if he had failed
to take a correct view of the law in regard to the reason for which he ordered the transfer.517 But
the Rangoon High Court has taken the view that the High Court's powers of revision being, in
express terms, limited to those conferred by certain sections mentioned in section 401 (sections
408-412 not being one of them) and no power of transfer over and above that in section 407 being
conferred by the Letters Patent, an application to revise an order of the lower court dismissing an
application under sections 408-412 did not lie, and that the remedy of the party was to file an
application for transfer under section 407.518
(xlix) Application to High Court to pronounce order of transfer when competent.-Where the
High Court in an application for revision is asked not to transfer any case from one court to another
but to pronounce that an order making such a transfer was made on improper and inadequate
grounds, such an application is not incompetent.519
(l) Orders under section 360.-Where a Magistrate makes an order of release under section 360 in
a case to which the provisions of that section are applicable after taking into consideration all the
relevant circumstances, the High Court will not interfere with the exercise of his discretion in
revision, unless a strong case is made out justifying such interference.520 The High Court will not
interfere with the order of the trial Magistrate under section 360 except where it is clearly mistaken
or injudicious or amounts to failure of justice.521 Where the judgment of the trial Magistrate is
perverse on the question of sentence, the High Court can interfere in revision.522
21. Powers to make consequential or incidental orders.-Under section 401, the High Court as a
revisional court can make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just
or proper, as contemplated by section 386(e).523 The High Court has power to pass the following
consequential or incidental orders :
(i) Orders as to costs of revision proceedings under Chapter XII.-It has been held by the
Bombay High Court that the High Court has power in revision to award costs incurred in the hearing
of an application in revision under Chapter XII as such an order is a consequential order that is just
and proper, within the meaning of section 386(e).524 But the Madras High Court has taken a
different view. The High Court, exercising its powers of revision from an order passed by a
Magistrate under Chapter XII, has no inherent power to award to the successful party the costs
incurred in the revision proceeding ; nor can the award of cost be regarded as incidental or
consequential to the disposal of the revision petition within the meaning of section 386(e), for it
does not necessarily follow from an order passed in revision.525
(ii) As to the power of High Court to order costs under section 148(3).-See Notes under
section 148, supra.
(iii) Costs in revision-Inherent power of High Court to award.-See Note under section 482,
infra.
(iv) No power to pass order for compensation under section 250.-An order directing
compensation to be paid is not a consequential or incidental order within the meaning of section
386(e), nor can it be said that in revision the High Court makes an order consequential or incidental
to an order of a Magistrate calling upon a complainant to show cause why he should not pay
compensation if it orders compensation, to be paid. Hence the High Court cannot under section 401
read with section 386(e), make an order for compensation, even if, upon the judgment and even if
cause had been shown, the High Court were of opinion that an order of compensation should be
made.526
(v) Orders under section 335.-An order under section 335 is clearly an order which the acquitting
court whether original or appellate, not only has power to make but is bound to make. It is a
consequential or incidental order as it follows as a matter of course, being the necessary
complement to the main order passed without which the latter will be ineffective or incomplete. If a
subordinate court disregards the provisions of section 335, the High Court has power to remedy the
34/115
3/15/13
error in revision.527
(vi) Orders under section 456.-The power of making any amendment or any consequential or
incidental order that may be just or proper was first conferred under the Code of 1898. The power is
very wide and authorises the High Court to reverse an order under section 456, where the accused
had been acquitted by the lower appellate court.528
(vii) Prosecution of witnesses.-The High Court, even when examining as a court of revision the
correctness or propriety of the judgment or final order in the judicial proceedings, can order
prosecution of witness.529
(viii) Refund of fine.-Setting aside a sentence of fine necessarily means that the fine, if collected,
should be refunded. If any action necessitated by the Treasury Rules or the Financial Code is
required, it is the duty of the original court which imposed the fine to take such steps as may be
necessary.530
(ix) Release on probation.-The accused is convicted under section 182, I.P.C. The lower courts
did not release him on probation. The High Court in revision is fully competent to make an order to
release the accused under Probation of Offenders Act.531
22. Further powers of High Court
(i) Issue warrant under section 390.-The High Court has, on an application in revision, power to
issue a warrant for arrest of the accused under section 390. A warrant of arrest is not an order to
the prejudice of the accused within the meaning of section 401(2) and as such no previous notice
to the accused is necessary.532
(ii) Power to take further evidence or direct it to be taken under section 391.-Under section
401(1), the High Court as a court of revision has all the powers of an appellate court including the
power to take additional evidence under section 391.533 Under section 401, the High Court has also
powers to direct evidence to be taken. The High Court, in a case of discharge can direct, even
before setting aside the order of discharge to take further evidence if it considers that it is
necessary in the interest of justice to do so.534
Section 401 does not empower the High Court to call for a finding when exercising its powers of
revision, although it does give power to call for additional evidence upon which the High Court can
itself come to a conclusion. An order of the High Court, based solely upon the finding submitted by
the lower court, is not correct. The additional evidence must be weighed by the court of revision
and its decision based upon a consideration thereof.535 The accused has no absolute and
unfettered right to ask the court to summon the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination, once
the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Where
conduct of the accused does not entitle him to any indulgence, the High Court in revision will not
interfere with the order of the Magistrate.536
The High Court in revision under section 401, will not permit additional evidence to be adduced to
prove a fact which is one of the necessary elements to be proved for a conviction, when to do so
would prejudice the accused adversely.537 It would be erroneous for any accused to assume that
the High Court will, while exercising jurisdiction under section 401, ordinarily call a witness for
examination before itself or condone a deliberate laxity on the part of a litigant and send back the
case for cross-examination of a witness.538
Where the accused was cutting certain neem trees which were standing on the land of which he
was the usufructuary mortgagee and the trial court held that the mortgagor was entitled to the
trees on redemption and that the accused had cut them with the intention to cause wrongful loss
to mortgagor, convicting the accused. In revision against conviction subsequent judgment of civil
court recognizing right of accused to cut and remove the trees brought to the notice of court that
judgment of civil court should be admitted as additional evidence in the interests of justice by the
revisional court and the accused acquitted as the judgment showed that the right claimed by him
was justified.539
(iii) Power to allow composition in revision.-The High Court can exercise the powers allowing
composition of offence in appropriate cases and the fact that the revision has been admitted only
35/115
3/15/13
on question of sentence can have no effect upon the powers of the High Court to accept a
composition in the entire case.540 As long as a revision is not finally disposed of, in terms of section
320(6), the High Court can exercise the power of allowing composition of an offence in appropriate
cases, even in those cases in which the applications have been admitted only on question of
sentence.541
(iv) Power to expunge remarks by lower court.-The High Court can, on the revision side,
expunge damaging remarks from the judgment of a subordinate court when there is nothing to
justify them.542 The High Court in revision will expunge objectionable observations, reflections or
strictures passed by the lower courts against persons without giving them any opportunity to be
heard.543 A Magistrate should not in his judgment in a criminal case make observations prejudicial to
the character of any person who is neither a witness nor a party to the proceedings and who has
had no opportunity of being heard and upon material which is not legal evidence in the case. Where
he does so, the High Court may interfere in revision and expunge the remarks.544
The High Court in revision will not permit the continuance on record of the expressions of a lower
appellate court tending to show its opinion that an accused, though acquitted by trial court and in
spite of the absence of appeal from the trial court's acquittal, was really guilty.545 But where a
Sessions Judge in convicting an accused person passed strictures on the complaint of police-officer
as a result of which he was dismissed from his service, it was held by the Bombay High Court that it
would be an extraordinary exercise of the powers of the High Court (assuming that it possessed
them) to order that the remarks complained of should be deleted.546
(v) No power to expunge evidence in pending case.-The High Court in revision has no power to
expunge evidence in a pending case. It is for the trial court in the first instance to deal with the
evidence in accordance with law. Until then, the matter is at large, and the High Court cannot in
revision deal with a hypothetical future grievance of a party. To put it shortly, the High Court
cannot in revision revise an order which has not yet been passed. (Blank, J.).547
(vi) Power of High Court to call up case for confirmation of death sentence.-See AIR 1944 Sind
83 (FB), cited under section 374, supra.
23. Notice to accused
(i) Scope of sub-section (2).-Section 401(2) does not apply to a case where the petitioner is not
an accused and the order of the lower court is only confirmed (e.g) on a reference under section
395.548
Where a notice has been given to the accused as to why order releasing him on probation of good
conduct should not be set aside, the order being illegal and invalid and pass sentence in lieu of it, it
cannot be said that this is a case of enhancement of any sentence as section 53, I.P.C. does not
indicate that order of release on probation of good conduct is an order inflicting any punishment.549
(a) Revision of order under section 145.-Since there is no accused involved in proceedings under
section 145, the obligation imposed upon the court under section 401(2) cannot apply to revision
against an order passed in proceedings under section 145. Therefore, an order dismissing a revision
against an order under section 145, cannot be challenged on the ground that the parties were not
heard.550
(b) Admission of revision.-Even if a time-barred criminal revisional application is admitted, whether
inadvertently or after condoning the delay in absence of and without notice to the respondent, the
respondent, on receipt of notice of revision must be allowed to urge that the revision should not
have been admitted. These considerations will not obviously apply where the High Court proceeds to
exercise its revisional jurisdiction suo motu for which no period has been prescribed either by
statute or by practice of courts.551
Where in the notice name of father of the opposite party was wrongly mentioned it was held that it
was defective notice and the revision was remanded.552 A criminal revision against acquittal should
not be decided against accused without issuing notice to him.553
(c) Refusal of notice.-The refusal by the accused, serving sentence in jail, to have the notice under
section 401(2), served upon him must be deemed in law to be a valid service.554
36/115
3/15/13
(ii) "Opportunity of being heard".-Mere appointment of an amicus curiae to argue on behalf of

the accused, does not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (2).555 Before the High Court
exercises its suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence, it is imperative that the
convict is put on notice and is given an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence.556
(iii) Direction to accused under section 73, Evidence Act.-A mere direction to an accused to
write any words or figures under para 2 of section 73, Evidence Act, cannot be said to amount to
the making of an order to the prejudice of the accused under section 401(2).557
(iv) No power to set aside acquittal against accused not party to revision.-Under section
401(2), no order can be passed to the prejudice of an accused unless he has had an opportunity of
being heard either personally or by a pleader in his own defence. In an application for revision
against an order of acquittal, if the High Court decides to set aside the order of acquittal, it can so
set aside the order only in respect of the accused persons who are actually parties to the revision
application. So far as the accused persons who are not parties to the revision are concerned, the
High Court cannot set aside the order of acquittal, and the acquittal of such persons cannot be
touched.558
(v) Order of compensation to accused-Setting aside-Notice to accused, if necessary.Although the interests of justice require that ordinarily an accused person should have notice of any
proceedings in which an order awarding compensation to him is to be set aside, he cannot be
deemed an accused person on his defence within the meaning of section 401(2), so that if, after
proper attempts have been made, he cannot be served, an illegal order for compensation passed
under section 250, must not necessarily stand for ever. Moreover, section 401(2), must be read
with sub-section (1) of the same section, and the frame of the whole section appears to have
application to an accused person charged with some offence and not to an accused person to
whom compensation has been ordered to be paid and who is in the position, so far as the order of
compensation is concerned, of the complainant.559 Where a Magistrate awarded compensation to an
accused person and the complainant applied to the High Court under sections 397 and 401, the High
Court declined to pass any order, as the accused had died, because no order could be passed to
the prejudice of a person who could not be served with a notice.560
(vi) Sentence cannot be enhanced without notice to accused.-See Notes, infra.
(vii) Notice to accused unnecessary before issue of warrant under section 390.-A warrant of
arrest under section 390 is not an order to the prejudice of the accused within the meaning of subsection (2) and, therefore, no previous notice to the accused is necessary.561
(viii) Alteration of conviction to graver offence-Notice.-Where the accused was duly heard in
the appeal and the State asks that on the evidence recorded, the conviction should be altered into
that of a graver offence the accused person cannot claim as a matter of right, a formal notice being
issued and his being heard against it.562
(ix) Order for retrial of non-appealing accused-Notice.-Where one of several accused persons
was convicted of the offence of conspiracy to murder while the others were convicted of murder, as
well as of conspiracy to murder and the latter alone preferred appeals to the High Court which set
aside their convictions on all the charges and ordered their retrial. It was held that the High Court
should also set aside the conviction of the non-appealing accused in exercise of its revisional
powers and that if it was of opinion that he should be retried along with the other appellants it
should, having regard to section 401(2), direct that a rule should be issued upon him and upon the
State to show cause why his conviction and sentence should not be set aside and why he should
not be retried.563
(x) Summary dismissal of application in revision by person against whom complaint is filed
under section 195(1)(a).-Where a Magistrate makes a complaint under section 195(1)(a), against
a person of an offence punishable under section 188, for having disobeyed orders passed in
proceedings under section 145, the very filing of the complaint by the Magistrate is a judicial act
and any application to the Sessions Judge to have the complaint withdrawn is asking the Sessions
Judge to exercise his judicial discretion. Such an application is not by way of appeal but is one by
way of revision. And any order of the Sessions Judge summarily dismissing the application for
withdrawal of the complaint without his being heard either personally or by pleader acts to the
prejudice of the applicant and is, therefore, improper.564
37/115
3/15/13
24. Interference with pending proceedings

(i) General principle.-There is no doubt that the High Court has power to interfere in revision with
a pending case. Section 401 gives wide powers of control over the proceedings of the inferior
courts, but that is an extraordinary power, which by its very nature, imposes grave responsibility on
the High Court of exercising it with due circumspection, to avert miscarriage or promote the ends of
justice. That is a residuary power which being of a discretionary character is incapable of precise
and rigid definition. But the revisional authority extensive as it is, rarely travels beyond the region of
law or procedure to correct errors in decision on the facts. When its exercise is called for in a
pending case, section 401 must be read in conjunction with section 397. In a pending case, no
question as to the correctness or propriety of a finding can arise ; consequently the superior court
can examine the proceedings of the inferior court only to satisfy itself as to their regularity.
At the stage of framing a charge, the High Court will not interfere if there is material available for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence of which he is charged with.565 The
proceedings would not be regular if the facts sought to be proved do not constitute an offence.
Continuation of such proceedings would, therefore, manifestly be but an abuse of the process of
court and harassment of the accused on trial. In such circumstances, considerations of justice
themselves dictate the termination of proceedings. Where, however, the facts alleged and sought
to be proved do constitute an offence and the decision turns on the credibility of witnesses and
inferences to be drawn after a close and critical examination of documentary evidence, interference
by the High Court would amount to an improper and illegitimate use of its revisional authority.566
Where nothing substantial has been brought to the notice of the High Court in revision which will
vary the decision of the Sessions Judge, the revision would fail.567
(a) Exceptional cases for interference.-The High Court will interfere to quash proceedings only in
exceptional cases such as where a person is being harassed by an illegal prosecution ; where there
is some manifest and patent injustice apparent on the face of the proceedings and calling for
prompt redress, where the evidence on record for the prosecution clearly does not justify a charge
of any offence, or where the trial is on the face of it an abuse of the process of court.568 In a case
where certain persons were being prosecuted for various criminal offences on a police challan and
no evidence had been recorded in the case, the only circumstances in which the High Court will
ordinarily interfere to quash proceedings at that stage are (1) when the prosecution's allegations,
even if true, do not disclose any offence, and (2) when there is some legal bar to the continuance
of the proceedings such as lack of jurisdiction or the bar under section 300.569
The High Court will not interfere in a pending case unless there is some manifest and patent
injustice apparent from the face of the proceedings and calling for prompt redress.570 The matter of
stay of criminal proceedings pending disposal of civil proceedings, is one of discretions of the
Magistrate and the High Court should not interfere with the same in revision.571 The High Court will
interfere with a pending proceeding only in rare and exceptional cases when such interference is
required in the interests of justice.572 Even if a serious error of law is committed by the lower court,
the High Court will interfere only where it finds that the point involved is one of general
importance.573 Only upon allegations of the gravest departure from procedure should the High Court
take the conduct of the case before its termination out of the hands of the trial court.574 The High
Court declined to interfere with a pending proceeding though the procedure followed was very
irregular and extraordinary.575
(b) Interference when at interlocutory stage?-The High Court may interfere with proceedings in the
lower court at an interlocutory stage when the accused is not guilty on the face of the proceedings
and in order to prevent his further harassment.576
(c) Tests for interference.-The circumstances which would justify the interference of the High
Court in a pending case cannot be laid down with precision. But one safe practical test would be
that a bare statement of the facts of the case without any elaborate argument should be sufficient
to convince the High Court that it is a fit one for its interference at an intermediate stage.577 (But a
question of territorial jurisdiction arising during the pendency of a case must be decided by the High
Court). Another test to be applied is to see whether in the admitted circumstances of the case, it
would be a mock trial if the case is allowed to proceed.578
The circumstances that the same set of facts alleged in the complaint may also give rise to civil
38/115
3/15/13
liability is no ground for quashing the criminal proceedings by the High Court in its revisional
jurisdiction. There is nothing in law to prevent the criminal courts from taking cognizance of an
offence, provided the elements of an offence are made out on the face of the complaint petition
itself.579 The High Court as a rule will allow proceedings to go on and take their course in lower
courts and will not interfere with a pending proceeding even though irregularly conducted, unless
there is an exceptional ground for interference. Generally speaking, a High Court would not
investigate whether pending proceedings were of a criminal or a civil nature, if the inquiry involved
lengthy arguments.580
Where the trial proceeds with interminable slowness for which the petitioner himself is to blame, it
will be wrong for the High Court to interfere in revision.581 Sessions courts should not readily ask the
High Court to interfere with pending proceedings in a criminal court. If it is a false and vexatious or
frivolous case, the trial court may and should, take action under section 250, when it acquits the
accused.582 Though it is the duty of the High Court to prevent the harassment of parties by illegal
prosecutions, it is also its duty to allow proceedings in the subordinate courts to go on and take
their natural course, unless there is any exceptional ground for interference by the High Court.583
There is in the anxiety shown to quash proceedings at the earliest possible stage, a tendency to
bring revision applications for that purpose before the High Court before the facts have been fully
ascertained. It is not the practice of the Allahabad High Court to take evidence in revision
applications and in many cases it is desirable that the trial should proceed and the question of law
involved be dealt with in the regular way in the first instance as part of the trial.584
The proceedings under section 6-A, Essential Commodities Act cannot be challenged in High Court in
revision as the Collector who initiated the proceedings cannot be said to be functioning as an
inferior criminal court.585
(d) Record of proceedings.-The High Court is restricted to what appears on the record of the
proceedings in the lower court and it would be improper to take into consideration matter entirely
extraneous to the record of the proceedings.586
(ii) Power of High Court to quash proceedings.-The power of a High Court to take action under
this section by quashing proceedings is undoubted, though such power will be exercised in
exceptional cases only.587 The section does not say that the High Court shall exercise only those
powers that are conferred on a court of appeal. On the other hand, it enacts that among the
powers possessed by the High Court are the powers conferred on an appellate court. The High Court
has, therefore, power at any stage to quash or set aside proceedings.588 The High Court has in the
exercise of its powers conferred by this section read with section 386(d), jurisdiction to quash
criminal proceedings pending in the court of a Magistrate. "Quashing of proceedings" is a term of
compendious connotation the practical result of which is the setting aside or reversal of the order
initiating the proceedings.589
Interference by the High Court in quashing the prosecution against those alleged to be guilty of
embezzlement or other types of corruption will not be judicial exercise of discretion, where great
injustice is not caused to the accused and the abuse of the process is such that it cannot be
eradicated by directing speedy trial.590
Where in a prosecution for defamation, the real object of the complainant is not to vindicate his
character or to extract from the accused the substantive penalty for his offence but to subject him
to heavy financial loss by protracted and lengthy proceedings, the High Court will interfere and
quash the proceedings.591 Courts should look with much suspicion on criminal actions which are
brought forward by partners of a still subsisting partnership against one another. In such cases, the
High Court will interfere if the matter is really one more suitable for settlement in a civil suit.592
(a) Infraction or evasion of law-guiding factor.-The rule by which the High Court is accustomed to
guide itself in quashing proceedings is that on the face of the proceedings, there must appear some
infraction or evasion of law calling for prompt redress. It cannot be held that the litigant, who elects
to allege that statements made in an affidavit are false and on that allegation to present a
complaint under section 500, I.P.C., can be regarded as evading the law, even though it might have
been open to him to wait until the civil suit had been decided and then to invite the civil court to
take action against the affidavit or for the offence of perjury. And there is no infraction or evasion
of the law patent upon the face of the proceedings to justify quashing of proceedings. But it is
39/115
3/15/13
highly expedient that the hearing of the complaint in such cases should not proceed until the
disposal of the suit and of any application which may follow for the prosecution of the applicant for
perjury.593
(b) No offence made out.-The proceedings are only quashed when no offence whatever is disclosed
or when the prosecution is bound, on the face of it, to fail, or for some other cause equally
powerful. Where the allegations made in the complaint, even taken at their face value, do not
disclose any of the offences alleged against the accused, issue of process by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate cannot be allowed to continue.594
Where the materials on record do not prima facie establish the offence in question, the High Court
will be fully justified in quashing the order of cognizance, as it would amount to abuse of the
process of court and cause gross miscarriage of justice.595 But they cannot be quashed before a
complainant who has disclosed a prima facie case, in his complaint has had an opportunity of
placing the material on which he bases his complaint before the court.596 However, in view of the
pendency of an application before the Magistrate to discharge the accused and when the question
of quashing the proceedings depends entirely on appreciation of evidence, the High Court should not
exercise its power of quashing the proceedings at the revision stage.597 At the same time, where no
case has been made out against the accused on the evidence recorded which would warrant their
conviction, the charge framed against the accused is liable to be quashed.598
It is perfectly proper for an accused person to invoke the revisional powers of the High Court at the
stage of the trial when a charge is framed against him on the ground that there is no prima facie
case against him to warrant any charge at all or on the ground of misjoinder of charges. In such
circumstances, the High Court will absolutely decline to enter into the merits of the evidence but will
merely see whether there is any evidence at all which would justify the framing of the charges.599
(c) Charge-sheet disclosing no offence.-The High Court, exercising power under section 401 can
quash a charge-sheet laid by the police, even in a summons case, when the particulars mentioned in
the charge-sheet do not amount to an offence.600 Ordinarily, any attempt to deprive the accused
of the protection and privileges of a substantial nature which the law confers on him must result in a
quashing of the proceedings.601 However, where a Magistrate directed an enquiry under section
159, to be held by the deputy superintendent of police, the mere fact that the enquiry was not held
by that officer as suggested by the Magistrate does not make the submission of the charge-sheet
on the part of investigating police, contrary to the provisions of Code, and the High Court will,
therefore, decline to quash the proceedings.602
(d) No Government consent.-At the time the lower court is considering the question of charge,
there is no valid consent of the Government before it, and this consent being a prerequisite for
institution of a case in view of provisions of section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
there remains nothing further for the accused to rebut.603
(e) Charge.-If the trying court thinks that there is a prima facie case against the man and frames
the charge, it would obviously be inadvisable to interfere at that stage unless it can be shown that
the Magistrate's order is clearly perverse in the face of all the evidence brought before him ; and
the Sessions Judge cannot show that the Magistrate's order is perverse or wrong by merely trying
the case in the manner he would do, had he been the Magistrate himself. This is not what a
revisional court should do. So long as there are facts which justify the framing of a charge, the
Magistrate must be left to exercise his discretion and authority and continue the trial.604 Otherwise
it would seriously impede the administration of justice, if parties were encouraged to come to the
High Court from time to time before the completion of trial.605 An accused person must wait till he is
charged before he defends himself, and if he is convicted his first remedy in most cases is by way of
appeal and not by way of revision. He should not anticipate his defence by a petition and the orders
on such petitions should not be allowed to be brought up on revision.606
(f) Offence committed without jurisdiction.-If on the face of the complaint the offence alleged
against the accused person appears not to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the court
in which the complaint is filed, then it would certainly be the duty of the High Court to interfere and
save waste of public time and needless expenses.607 But in the undermentioned decision the High
Court will not quash a complaint which on the face of it discloses an offence, on the sole ground
that the Magistrate who entertained the complaint had no territorial jurisdiction to try the
40/115
3/15/13
offence.608
(g) Summons case wrongly tried as warrant case.-A summons case was wrongly tried as a warrant
case and the error in procedure was not pointed out by the prosecution until the case was
practically finished. The Magistrate thereupon ordered a fresh case against which the accused came
up to the High Court in revision. It was held that further proceedings pending against the accused
should be quashed inasmuch as the trial was conducted in a most dilatory manner by the
prosecution who had been given adjournments which would have been quite unsuitable in a
summons case and who had not produced evidence which could sustain a conviction.609
(iii) Interference where called for.-The High Court will interfere with the pending proceedings in
the following cases.
(a) Illegal prosecutions.-If the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the
High Court in revision will be justified in quashing the investigation.610 When it is brought to the
notice of the High Court, that a person has been subjected for over two months to the harassment
of an illegal prosecution, it is the bounden duty of the High Court to interfere.611 Where, by any law
or regulation, a certain person is only authorised to complain about a particular offence, the
proceedings of a Magistrate based on a complaint relating to that offence, made by any
unauthorised person, are ultra vires and liable to be set aside on revision by the High Court at any
time during the pendency of the case.612 When a manifest irregularity or illegality has been
committed in the institution of proceedings, there is no point in permitting the proceedings to
continue. Once the illegality is brought to light, the High Court will exercise its revisional jurisdiction
to remedy the illegality and quash the proceedings.613
For the purpose of framing charge, the duty of the Judge is to consider judicially the material on
record to see if it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the alleged
offence and there is reasonable probability of the accused being found guilty. In a bona fide civil
dispute leading to seizure of the vehicle in dispute, no case under s. 379, I.P.C. is made out against
the accused and he is entitled to be discharged.614
(b) Groundless and vexatious prosecutions.-Interference by the High Court in a pending proceeding
will be justified and is necessary in order to prevent a clear abuse of the right to resort to a criminal
court.
The criminal court is never intended to be and is not a court where summary applications can be
made for possession. A proceeding under section 441, I.P.C., brought in a criminal court in order to
bring pressure upon the accused to give the complainant possession where the accused could not
have any of the intents required for criminal trespass, is really an abuse of the process of the
criminal court, and is liable to be quashed in revision.615 Where it is clear that a complaint under
sections 417 and 427, I.P.C., is filed against the accused only with a view to putting pressure on
the accused and with a view to having a cheaper remedy in respect of a matter altogether of a civil
nature, the proceedings would be quashed.616 When all the necessary materials are available and
the charge appears to be prima facie groundless, it is an obvious duty of the High Court to
interfere, without subjecting a person to the unnecessary harassment of a trial.617 The probability
of the accused being eventually acquitted after a protracted trial is no ground for the noninterference of the High Court at an earlier stage to save a man from a groundless and vexatious
prosecution.618
(c) No useful purpose to be served by continuance of proceedings.-It would be proper for the High
Court to interfere in order to quash pending proceedings only in two contingencies, (1) if the
prosecution allegations, even when accepted as true, do not establish any offence against the
accused, and (2) where an offence is established if the allegations are believed, but there is no
evidence at all to support the allegations.619 Where eight persons were charged with offences under
various sections of the I.P.C. and three of them had not been arrested when the proceedings were
initiated but they surrendered at a late stage after the trial and acquittal of the other five accused
and their case also rested on the same evidence, the High Court quashed the proceedings, as it was
clear that no useful purpose would be served by the continuance of the proceedings against
them.620 Where a man who has been once tried and acquitted is put on trial again, if the
circumstances are such that it is inexpedient that further proceedings should be taken, the High
Court, acting under this section, may stop the further proceedings.621 The fact that a person has
41/115
3/15/13
been harassed already by two similar complaints, both of which have been dismissed or he himself
discharged, is ample ground for quashing a third complaint made on the same facts.622
Where proceedings before a Magistrate disclosed no offence, no useful purpose would be served by
their continuance and the High Court will direct that the prosecution be quashed.623 When the High
Court is satisfied that an accused is being prosecuted without there being any material for the
prosecution, it would be abdicating its function if it did not interfere to stop patent injustice calling
for a prompt redress.624 It is open to High Court even sitting in revision to set aside the order of
issuing summons to accused if it thinks that interest of justice requires so.
It will be manifestly unjust to permit continuance of criminal proceedings when there is no possibility
of the case ending in conviction.625 On a complaint against a company, after going through the
several charges, the Sub-Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie
case against the accused regarding a balance-sheet, went through the records and held that
explanation given by the accused must be considered but that they should be tried. It was held
that whatever might be the ultimate view regarding this in the civil court, the reasonable
explanation offered by the accused was sufficient to quash the proceedings in revision.626
(d) Proceedings under section 107, where information does not justify action.-The High Court is to
prevent the abuse of law and, if in a case under section 107, it is found that the information did not
justify the Magistrate in issuing warrant for the arrest of the applicants for holding a public meeting,
the High Court will quash the order under section 107.627
(iv) Power of High Court to interfere with interlocutory orders.-The words used in section 397
of the Code are very general and the High Court has jurisdiction to revise interlocutory orders.628
But as a general rule, the High Court will not interfere in interlocutory proceedings.629 There is
ordinarily no justification for any court to take up in revision what are really interlocutory matters in
a criminal court 630 ; but in a later case it was held that nevertheless an application for revision in
such a matter lay.631 Interlocutory orders passed without jurisdiction which constitute nullities can
be interfered with in revision under section 401, but interlocutory orders passed within jurisdiction
cannot be so interfered with.632 The power to interfere with an interlocutory order passed by the
lower court or in proceedings pending before the lower court cannot obviously be exercised by a
court of appeal, inasmuch as it is only when a final order or judgment is passed by the trial court
that the matter comes up in appeal.
A court of revision, however, which is entitled under section 397 to send for the records of any
proceeding of the inferior court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to its regularity, must
necessarily have the power to interfere and quash the proceedings where it finds that such
proceedings are seriously irregular. The powers of the High Court in revision under section 401 are
not exhaustive. The section only enacts that among the powers possessed by the High Court are
the powers of a court of appeal, and not that the High Court shall exercise only those powers which
are conferred on a court of appeal.633 The High Court's powers of revision are not co-extensive with
the powers in appeal. It has to satisfy itself of the regularity of the proceedings of the inferior court
and it can interfere even with interlocutory orders, if the interests of justice require such
interference.634
The order of stoppage of proceedings under section 258 is not an interlocutory order. If the
consequence is discharge, the remedy will be a revision.635
The High Court may or may not interfere with interlocutory orders in the following cases.(a) Order framing charge.-The High Court can, as a court of revision, interfere with the order of a
Magistrate charging a person with the offence during the pendency of a trial.636 The High Court's
power to examine the proceedings at the stage when charge is framed and if necessary to set aside
the charge and quash proceedings is undoubted.637 If a charge is framed where none should have
been framed, the proceeding of the Magistrate becomes irregular and the High Court has power to
interfere.638 Where, on the facts disclosed no offence under section 417, I.P.C., is made out but
the charge is framed under that section, the High Court is competent to quash the charge and
dismiss the complaint.639 Where a charge was framed under section 420, I.P.C., by the trial
Magistrate, the High Court, proceeding on the assumption that all the facts alleged in the charge
42/115
3/15/13
have been proved, held that in no view of the facts alleged there was any offence either of simple
or of the aggravated form of cheating, and the High Court quashed the proceedings as their
continuance would mean an abuse of the process of court.640 But the mere fact that an act gives
rise to a civil or criminal liability according to the intention of a person charged is not a ground for
interference with a charge.641
Where the lower court has only framed a charge against the executors for criminal breach of trust in
respect of a fixed deposit of the testator which the accused had withdrawn and deposited in their
own firm, and the case involved questions relating to the construction of the will, the authority of
the executors, their subsequent conduct, etc. It was held that without having the whole case
before the court, it was impossible for the High Court in revision to say if mixture of the testator's
funds with those of the executor was criminal or only irregular and that the charge could not be
quashed.642
Where the lower court after considering the evidence thinks that there is some evidence to frame a
charge, the High Court in revision will not at that stage analyse the evidence to see whether a
charge would have been framed by itself, had it been the inquiring court.643 Where a revision is
preferred against the framing of a charge after the examination of only some of the P.Ws., the High
Court would be extremely reluctant at that stage to enter into the merits of the evidence produced
in the case to find out whether it is sufficient and reliable to support the charge. It is an undesirable
procedure.644 Where an accused comes up in revision against an order of the trial court framing a
charge against him and contends that the offence, if at all, is made out as against the other coaccused, and not as against him, it is not for the court of revision at that stage to interfere and
give a finding one way or the other as that would prejudice the other accused. It would always be
open to the petitioner in revision to appeal against the judgment of the trial court, if he feels
aggrieved.645 It is not the function of the revisional court to assess the value or credibility of
evidence, adduced before the trial court. All the High Court is concerned about is whether prima
facie sufficient material exists for framing a charge, and once the High Court is satisfied that a
charge has been properly framed on the material on record and that there has been no irregularity
or impropriety in the framing of the charge, the High Court will not interfere with the order of the
lower court.646
(b) Magistrate declining to record evidence tendered.-Where a Magistrate declined to record the
statements of an accused after his conviction in a subsequent trial of certain persons when
tendered by the prosecution as their witness, the Magistrate being of opinion that his evidence
would be inadmissible, the chief court on revision set aside the order of the Magistrate on the
ground that the evidence was not inadmissible and the postponement or the rectification of the
error of the Magistrate might very possibly lead to a considerable waste of time or to a miscarriage
of justice.647
(c) Order refusing to allow questions to be put to witness.-The trying Magistrate refused to allow
the complainant to put certain questions to a prosecution witness on the ground that his answering
the question might incriminate him in another pending case in which he was an accused person. It
was held that this was a fit case for the interference of the High Court in revision at an
interlocutory stage. The Magistrate had made a patent error of law depriving the prosecution of the
evidence of an important witness and the error, if not corrected at once, would either be
irremediable, or might lead to a further prolongation of the proceedings.648
(d) Order overruling objection as to jurisdiction.-The revisional powers conferred on the High Court
include the power of setting aside an order overruling an objection taken on behalf of the accused
to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.649
(e) Order upholding contention that document produced in court is privileged.-Where a Railway
Divisional Superintendent, at the request of a court, sends certain statements made by certain
persons to a station master, to the court in a sealed cover but at the same time takes objection to
their production on the ground that they were privileged and the Magistrate upholds this contention,
the order upholding the contention is open to revision.650
(v) High Court has power to stay pending proceedings.-The High Court will not stay pending
proceedings before a Magistrate save under exceptional circumstances.651 When a civil court
directs the committal of a party to the suit for trial on a charge for perjury or forgery and an appeal
43/115
3/15/13
has been lodged against that order, the High Court cannot interfere to stay the proceedings until
the appeal has been heard and decided.652 A person against whom criminal proceedings are
instituted cannot claim, as a matter of course, that such proceedings shall be stayed pending the
result of civil proceedings. In each case, discretion must be exercised and the particular
circumstances of the case duly considered. Where the civil suit has been instituted without any
unnecessary delay after the prosecution for misappropriation and all the claimants to the property
had been made defendants to the suit, the criminal proceedings were stayed by the chief court.653
Where civil proceedings were started along with criminal proceedings under sections 417 and 420,
I.P.C., that criminal proceedings should be stayed till the civil ones are terminated.654 It is proper
that civil suits instituted earlier should be given precedence over the trial of the criminal cases in
respect of the same subject-matter. Criminal cases should be stayed pending decision of the civil
suits.655 However, proceedings in a trial cannot be stopped merely because the accused cites, as
one of his witnesses, a person upon whom process cannot be served and who cannot be examined
on commission.656
Stay of a criminal proceeding pending decision of civil suit is a matter of discretion having regard to
the legal principles. Where a company filed a civil suit against its employees and subsequently filed a
complaint with Magistrate for offence under section 408, I.P.C. and the Magistrate refused to stay
criminal proceedings pending decision of civil suit, as the company has not, in spite of lapse of three
years, taken any steps in the civil suit, the High Court in revision will interfere and order stay of
criminal proceedings.657
(vi) Disposal of case by lower court after stay by High Court, ultra vires.-Where the High Court
stayed proceedings but the lower court, though informed of it by the party, disposed of the case,
the lower court's order is ultra vires.658
25. Interference with findings of fact
(i) General principle.-There can be no doubt that where the interests of justice demand, the
findings of the lower courts which normally deal with the facts of a case may be reopened and even
be reversed by the court ; but before this is done every item of relevant evidence upon which the
findings are based should be carefully scrutinised and weighed.659 A court of revision should be very
reluctant to set aside order of lower courts on question of appreciation of evidence.660 It cannot be
said that on no account or in no case should a finding of fact by the trial Magistrate be upset or
reversed in revision. Ordinarily, however, a finding of fact by the trial Magistrate is not interfered
with in revision. But in a case where there can be no appeal because a non-appealable sentence is
awarded, different considerations prevail as regards the duty of the court exercising revisional
jurisdiction.661 The jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely
restricted and it cannot embark upon a reappreciation of evidence. But in a case where the High
Court did it and found the decision of the lower courts to be correct, the Supreme Court refused to
interfere in appeal.662 In an application under section 401, the revisional court is not required, nor is
it within its competence to reappreciate the evidence on record.663 Sitting in revision, the High
Court is not justified in entering into a question of fact whether accused participated in the
occurrence.664 In a proceeding under section 401, finding on a pure question of fact cannot be
challenged when it is not found that in coming to his finding, the Sessions Judge omitted to consider
any material evidence or that any evidence was misread.665 High Court should interfere only when it
comes to conclusion that there had been apparent error of law or there had been flagrant
miscarriage of justice.666 Where at the time of disposal of revision in a complaint case under
sections 323, 337, I.P.C. the matter had become 10 years old and revision was pending for 6 years,
revision was dismissed without expressing opinion on merits.667
The High Court has to be wary and circumspect while making appraisal of the evidence of the
witnesses in revision. Unless glaringly inconsistent evidence is indicated by the revision petitioner
which was unreasonably accepted by the trial court resulting in miscarriage of justice, the revisional
court should be slow in disturbing the findings of the court below. Since it is clearly established that
the charge cannot be established against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, no purpose will be
served if there would be further direction for retrial.668
(a) Interference when and when not justified?-The High Court sitting in revision is not a court of
first instance dealing with questions of fact, and though it will in certain circumstances interfere on
44/115
3/15/13
questions of fact, ordinarily it will not do so. It will interfere only on the clearest and strongest
grounds as when, for instance, there is no evidence to justify the finding of the lower court or when
it appears to the court that the proceedings are so defective that the conscience of the court is
touched or there has clearly been a miscarriage of justice.669 The High Court does not, as a court
of revision, ordinarily interfere with findings of fact.670 Normally the High Court does not interfere
with the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below upon a revision application, unless the
courts below have overlooked essential parts of evidence and acted upon inadmissible and
extraneous matters.671 In a revision application there is no reason to interfere with finding of fact
by the Magistrate based on appreciation of evidence.672 Where the prosecution has not proved its
case against the accused, the finding of the lower court is correct and in accordance with law.
There being no infirmity in the judgment of the lower court, criminal revision is liable to be
dismissed.673
(b) Revision against acquittal.-In a revisional application against order of acquittal, the High Court
will not interfere with the finding of fact unless it is unreasonable or perverse or without
evidence.674
(c) Miscarriage of justice.-It cannot be said that the power of the High Court in revision is limited to
question of law alone. In special and exceptional circumstances the High Court, in exercise of its
revisional powers, is entitled to go into questions of fact where acceptance of the opinion of the
courts below is likely to lead to miscarriage of justice.675 Ordinarily, the High Court would not
interfere in revision with a finding of fact, unless it can be shown that the Magistrate has gravely
misapprehended the trend of the evidence or has overlooked some important points which, if he had
taken into consideration, would have caused him to come to a different conclusion.676
(d) Prevention of gross and palpable failure of justice.-No doubt the revisional jurisdiction of the
High Court can always be exercised in order to prevent a gross and palpable failure of justice. But
this exercise of revisional jurisdiction refers to such an error of facts as is obvious upon the face of
the record and is not in effect a mistake by the Magistrate as to the question, which set of facts
should be deemed more acceptable but a blunder relating to the question as to whether some fact
has been proved or not. But where there was evidence before the Magistrate which, if he believed
in, would enable him to find as he did, the application in revision by the accused could not be
treated as an appeal and the machinery of the court in criminal revision could not be invoked.677
(e) Total misconception of evidence.-Though the court has a wide power of interference in revision
applications to prevent injustice, this power is to be exercised in accordance with well-established
principles. It is not, for instance, for the High Court in revision to deal with questions of fact or of
law as would a court of first appeal. To justify the interference by the court in revision, it must be
shown, first, that the Judge below has committed some error of law, and, secondly, that the
accused has been materially prejudiced by that error. The court may also exercise its revisional
power, even as regards findings of fact, in cases where the lower court has totally misconceived
the evidence and come to an obviously wrong conclusion. But it is only in very extreme cases which
justify such an interference with the appreciation of fact by the lower court which heard the
evidence and the appellate court which reconsidered its value.678
(f) Adequacy of grounds.-The adequacy or sufficiency of grounds to suspect violations of Foreign
Exchange law by the petitioners cannot be gone into in revision.679
(ii) High Court has power to consider evidence in revision.-The revisional powers of the High
Court are contained in sections 397 and 401 authorising the High Court to call for ''and examine the
record'' of any proceedings before any inferior criminal court. The examination of the record includes
the examination of the evidence on record led on behalf of the prosecution or on behalf of the
defence. Under section 401, the High Court may in its discretion, exercise any of the powers
conferred on a court of appeal by section 386. One of the powers conferred on a court of appeal
evidently is to scrutinise facts and evidence on record.680 Where the discrepancies in evidence of
the prosecution witnesses appear to be too trivial, there would be no sufficient reasons to interfere
with the finding by the lower court.681 If the circumstantial evidence is such that it does not
conclusively prove the guilt of the accused, the High Court in revision has a duty to interfere with
conviction on such evidence.682 If the Judges think it right to consider the whole evidence, the High
Court has power to do so in revision.683 The power of the High Court in revision to go into questions
45/115
3/15/13
of fact is undoubted. Whether or not it will exercise the power in any particular case depends
entirely upon the merits of the case itself.684
High Court will have no jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence in revision against an order of Sessions
Judge, dismissing appeal after reappraisal of evidence against an order of conviction.685
(a) Non-appealable sentence.-The High Court in revision, has power to examine the evidence if
prima facie grounds exist especially where the accused has been given a non-appealable
sentence.686
(b) Interests of justice.-There is no provision of law which debars a court of revision from going into
the evidence, if it is of opinion that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice.687 The High
Court is not debarred from entering into a discussion of and looking into the evidence and the facts
in order to find out if there has been a miscarriage of justice.688 The High Court should, no doubt,
not interfere in revision with findings of fact, merely because after examining the evidence it might
be inclined to take a different view from that taken by the court below. But the High Court can
peruse the evidence where it thinks it necessary in the interest of justice.689 Sitting as a court of
revision, even if the High Court is of the view that the findings given by the Sessions Judge are not
reasonable and that his appreciation of evidence is not in accord with the accepted tests for
weighing oral evidence, the High Court cannot interfere with those findings.690
(c) Consideration of relief.-Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised in the manner
by which the High Court is enabled to interfere even on facts in appropriate cases, so that it is not
deprived of a jurisdiction which would be coextensive with that of trial court in the matter of
granting relief.691
(d) Perverse finding.-If the finding is perverse and miscarriage of justice has occurred, the court of
revision, in order to do justice, can enter into evidence of fact and interfere with the finding of
fact.692 A court of revision does not go into the weight or sufficiency of evidence or credibility of
witnesses or substitute its own view of the evidence where two views are possible. However, when
the finding of fact is arrived at contrary to well-established principles of law or where there is no
evidence to support the finding or where the finding is perverse or such as no reasonable man could
have arrived at on the evidence produced, interference can be made in revision on question of
fact.693
(e) Order in defiance of unrebutted evidence.-Ordinarily, no doubt, the High Court will not interfere
with the findings of fact, but there can be no doubt that it has jurisdiction to review even questions
of fact, as the words of section 397 clearly indicate and will do so where there is a clear miscarriage
of justice, as for example, where the order of the Magistrate is in defiance of all legal and almost
unrebutted evidence on record.694
(f) Different conclusion-No interference.-A court of revision will not approach the matter as if it
were a court of appeal. So long as the proceedings of the Magistrate are in order and so long as the
Magistrate has fairly estimated the evidence before him in his own mind, his decision should not be
disturbed, even if the revisional court should be of the opinion that on the evidence another
conclusion might have been reached.695 In revision it is necessary in order to get a conviction set
aside to show that it is wrong. Ordinarily, the court will not go into the facts, at all, unless the
conscience of the court has been touched in regard to them.696
It is not open to the High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to make a reassessment of
the evidence which is believed by the courts below.697
(iii) Power to consider evidence, if merely discretionary.-The interference by the High Court in
revision is not limited to matters of law and it is fully competent to it to enter into matters of fact.
On the other hand, it is not bound to go into evidence if it does not think fit.
The mere application of a party to examine the evidence in any case would not be a sufficient
ground for doing so. Indeed, were it otherwise, there would virtually be a second appeal on the
facts in every case in which the parties come up to High Court.698 The decision in 22 Cal 998 was
followed in 23 IC 493 by Ayling J., who held that it was in the discretion of a High Court to exercise
its power of going into the question of appreciation of evidence. But see the observations of
Sankaran Nair, J.-''It has now been settled by a series of decisions of this court and of the Bombay
46/115
3/15/13
and Calcutta High Courts that it is open to the High Court to consider whether there has been any
misappreciation of evidence, and if the court has power to do so and if a convicted person claims to
be heard to show that the lower courts have misappreciated the evidence in the case and that he
has been unjustly convicted, it is not, in my opinion open to a Judge to say that it is within his
discretion to permit or refuse him to do so or not. No doubt, the section only says that the High
Court may interfere in revision, but I think the word ''may'' is the only word that could be used in the
section.''699 However, where the order passed by the Magistrate is based on an appreciation of
evidence which is reasonable, no interference is called for.700
(a) Necessity of going into evidence.-Interference in revision is a matter which will be undertaken or
left open upon a consideration of the character of the case as a whole and in detail and even
though the High Court has very wide revisional powers, not being confined to matters of law alone,
it will not go into evidence unless it is necessary to do so by reason of special circumstances or by
reason of the character of the error of law. There must appear, on the face of the judgment or of
the order complained of or of the record, some ground-which need not always be a ground of law-to
induce the High Court to think that the evidence ought to be examined in order to see whether
there has been a miscarriage of justice and it is not the right of a party to claim that the court
should investigate the facts merely on the ''allegation'' that there should be another trial because he
has not succeeded before the lower court.701
(iv) High Court when may consider evidence ?
(a) General principles.-It is only in very exceptional cases that the High Court sitting, as a court of
revision, deals with questions of evidence, and disturbs or supplements the finding of a lower court
on a question of fact.702
(1) ORDER OF COMMITMENT.-Ordinarily, the High Court in a revision petition filed against order of
commitment does not enter upon reappraisal of the evidence, but interference is justified where a
specific question of law arises on which the correctness of the order of commitment may be
effectively challenged i.e. where there is no evidence on which the order of commitment could be
made.703
(2) JUDGMENT OF FACT MANIFESTLY WRONG AND UNJUST.-In criminal revisions, it is not, generally
speaking, within the High Court's function to go behind the finding of facts to support which there is
evidence on record. Though the court's jurisdiction to interfere in respect of the correctness of the
findings of facts is unquestionable, it will not as a rule go into the evidence, save in exceptional
cases as where judgment of the fact is manifestly wrong and grossly and palpably unjust.704
(3) ACQUITTAL.-Where the Sessions Judge has considered the evidence on record and has arrived
at his findings on the basis of that evidence, or has not wrongly held the evidence accepted by the
trial court to be inadmissible, nor has overlooked to take into account some material evidence on
record nor has committed any illegality in appreciating the evidence, the question whether the
evidence are sound and justifiable or not is not one which can be considered by the High Court in
revision while considering an order of acquittal.705
(4) SPECIAL OCCASION.-In a criminal revision, the High Court will not look into the evidence at all
unless satisfied that a special occasion is made out for it which may be from the manner the trial
has been conducted in the court below or the omission to consider some outstanding
circumstances. When such an occasion arises, it is the duty of the High Court to go into
evidence.706 Where the lower court has approached the case from a wrong point of view and the
evidence in the case has not received due consideration, the High Court may go into the merits in
revision.707 Where it is apparent that the lower courts have approached the matter as if it was a
civil case, overlooking the important presumptions with which they ought to have started in the
consideration of a criminal case, namely, that an accused person is innocent and that the burden of
establishing the charge is on the prosecution entirely, the High Court may consider the evidence.708
If the High Court in an application in revision is satisfied that the material before the court is so
hopeless that no reasonable court would or could ever convict the accused of the offence alleged,
the High Court would enter into the facts, although as a general rule it will but rarely go into the
facts in a criminal revision.709
(5) INTEREST OF PUBLIC JUSTICE.-The High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction shall
accept the finding on a question of fact recorded by a subordinate Tribunal unless it is manifestly
47/115
3/15/13
erroneous. The High Court will interfere when there is no sufficient appraisal of evidence by the
subordinate courts or where defence evidence was not looked into at all or adequate attention was
not paid to it. Although the revisional powers of the High Court are wide, they may be exercised not
as a matter of course but only where the interest of public justice demands it.710 There is no bar
under any provision of law saying that an application in revision cannot lie directly to the High Court
and that it must always come through the court of session.711 The user of the exception power of
interference in revision based on sifting of evidence must be left to High Court itself when the party
directly comes up in revision to the High Court.712
(b) Evidence where may be considered.-The High Court may consider evidence in the following
cases.
(1) ENQUIRY IN THE LOWER COURT FAULTY.-The High Court may consider evidence in the interest
of justice where the inquiry in the lower court had been faulty.713 In the exercise of its revisional
power, the High Court can go into the facts of the case, when hearsay evidence, which is not
admissible, has been admitted upon important points and the evidence is not considered from the
right point of view, e.g., where the evidence of accomplices was regarded as that of ordinary
witnesses.714 Where the Magistrate's appreciation of the oral evidence is influenced by the wrong
admission of an inadmissible document, the High Court is entitled to go into the whole evidence in
revision.715
When a revisional court holds that in deciding on the guilt of an accused, the lower courts have
taken into consideration inadmissible evidence, it is plainly incumbent on the revisional court to
satisfy itself that the remaining evidence which the lower court, could properly take into
consideration, is sufficient to establish as against the accused, proof of his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.716 But where the irrelevant evidence that was admitted by the Magistrate and acted upon
by him had been excluded from consideration by the Sessions Judge and upon the remaining
evidence that was relevant and material he came to the same finding as that arrived at by the
Magistrate, it cannot be said that the decision of the trial court, is vitiated so as to call for an
interference in revision.717
(2) NO INVESTIGATION OF FACTS BY APPELLATE COURT.-If the appellate court does not thoroughly
investigate the facts as dealt with by the trial court, the High Court will do so in revision.718
Where the Sessions Judge in appeal has discussed the prosecution evidence only and he has
omitted to discuss the evidence of the defence witnesses, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction
should consider facts and evidence which the Sessions Judge has omitted to scrutinise.719
(3) ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT.-Where the construction of a document, upon which
the guilt or innocence of the accused largely depends, is erroneous, the High Court has in revision
power to go into the facts fully.720
(4) CONVICTION AFTER AN UNJUSTIFIABLE ORDER OF RETRIAL.-In hearing a petition for revision
against an order of conviction passed after an unjustifiable order for retrial, seriously prejudicial to
the accused, the High Court will proceed to try the case as an appeal, i.e., will go into all the facts
of the case to satisfy itself as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.721
(5) TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A RE-HEARING SHOULD BE DIRECTED.-Although ordinarily the High
Court does not go into evidence, yet it will do so in a particular case, where necessary, for
instance, to ascertain whether a re-hearing should be directed.722
(v) High Court will not weigh evidence.-With regard to findings of fact, the only question which
the High Court in revision will consider is whether there was evidence on which the Magistrate could
come to that conclusion.723 A question of appreciation of evidence cannot be investigated into in
revision by the High Court.724 Findings of lower appellate court that the F.I.R. was lodged with
undue delay and that the prosecution witnesses failed to give a proper explanation of the injuries
sustained by the accused, being findings of fact, cannot be interfered with in revision. In a revision
petition, the High Court cannot reassess the evidence. Where the accused chose to examine only
one witness at appeal stage who was not examined at trial stage, it is no ground to treat revision
petition to be a kind of an appeal and reassess evidence.725
If two views are possible then the mere fact that the trial court took one of the two possible views
48/115
3/15/13
which the revisional court would not have preferred to take is by itself no ground for replacing the
view taken by the trial court by the alternative view which the revisional court would feel inclined to
take.726
(a) No reappreciation of evidence generally.-The power of the High Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction is highly restricted. It is not required to reappraise the evidence over again.727 It is not
proper in revision to enter into regions of evidence which found favour with the courts below. In the
absence of any illegality, it will not be proper to interfere with the judgment of the courts below.728
The High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record.729 Sitting in revision to reappreciate
the evidence, credibility of the evidence of a witness is matter of reappreciation of evidence.730 In
revision, the High Court never interferes on the question of finding of fact.731 It is not open to the
High Court to reappreciate evidence in revision application. Where no question of law is involved in
the matter, the revision application is liable to be rejected in limine at the admission stage.732
Where the trying Magistrate believed on the evidence that a certain seizure of cattle was illegal,
the High Court in revision would refuse to interfere.733 However, it must not be understood that
appraisal of evidence by the Magistrate, however grossly infirm, is completely sacrosanct, never to
be examined on revision.734 In revision, the High Court rarely interferes with findings of fact arrived
at by a Magistrate on an enquiry under section 145.735 Whether or not the accused as manager is
in fact in overall charge of the affairs of the factory and whether or not he has any knowledge of
the commission of the offence under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act are questions
of fact which may be considered at trial and not in revision.736
Where the Sessions Judge has elaborately discussed the evidence to come to a conclusion that the
accused was exercising the right of private defence, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the
High Court will not interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Judge.737 The fact that the appellate
court took a different view of the facts from what the first court did, is, in ordinary cases, no
ground for revision.738 So long as the conclusion of the Magistrate is a possible conclusion, the mere
fact that another conclusion may have also been possible is not a ground for upsetting a finding
arrived at by the trial court in revision.739 Where the question before the High Court exercising the
powers of revision, is one of appreciation of evidence, the rule of practice is not to disturb a
conviction when there is legal evidence oral or documentary, to sustain the conviction.740 At the
stage of revision, High Court will not be entitled to compare the main signature with the admitted
signature as it amounts to putting in fresh material in support of the finding arrived at by the courts
below.741 The question whether the offence alleged is made out on the basis of the evidence relied
upon by the courts below is a pure question of fact which cannot be entered into in revision.742
Where it is alleged that police has recorded supplementary statements as to identification, the High
Court will not enter into the merits as it will be appreciating evidence which is not permitted in
revision.743 In a revision the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. The High Court will not
interfere with an order of acquittal unless the grounds themselves warrant it.744 Even before
referring to or relying on the documents produced by the accused, the Magistrate has come to the
conclusion that no offence has been made out by the complainant either in his complaint or in his
sworn statement, no interference is necessary with the order of the Magistrate dismissing the
complaint.745 Ordinarily the High Court ought not reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own
findings in place of those of the trial court, in revision arising out of proceedings under section 145
unless there has been a miscarriage of justice.746
Where the finding of fact recorded by the lower court is not improper and occasions no miscarriage
of justice, the revisional court will not interfere.747 When trial court which had the advantage of
marking the demeanour of witnesses accepts their version and when appellate court accepts such
evidence to be truthful version, the High Court, in exercise of revisional powers, will not interfere
with the same specially when an appeal from an appellate judgment is not provided for.748 The High
Court will not interfere with findings based on appreciation of evidence.
The High Court will not interfere where the lower court has chosen to believe a certain evidence and
disbelieve the rest.749 Where on consideration of evidence the Magistrate is satisfied that a prima
facie case against the accused is made out and he issued process against them and the Magistrate
has exercised his discretion and has given reasons for his conclusion, whether the reasons are good
49/115
3/15/13
or bad, sufficient or insufficient it is not a matter which could have been examined by the High Court
in revision.750 The High Court in revision will decline to question the opinion of the court of first
instance in respect of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence.751 The High Court cannot proceed to
re-appraise the evidence of witnesses and upset the finding of the Magistrate on the ground that
he ''had not taken the trouble of sifting the grain from the chaff''.752
(b) Appeal vis-a-vis revision.-On an application in revision, the High Court will not look at the facts
in the light of an ordinary appeal but will see whether there is something in the way in which the
trial court has looked at the law or in the method by which it has dealt with the evidence which
makes it so doubtful whether a conviction is right that it would amount to a miscarriage of justice to
allow it to stand.753 A revisional court does not decide the balance of credibility between two
conflicting sets of witnesses or two conflicting issues of fact but it may be compelled to dissent
from a finding of fact which is either perverse or has been arrived at contrary to well-established
principles of law.754 On revision by a private complainant, the High Court is not entitled to
reappraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a court of appeal and then order a retrial.755
Where lower courts have believed evidence of some witnesses, any deviations by other witnesses
do not necessarily detract from the value of appreciation made by the lower court.
The power of the High Court in criminal appeal is totally distinct from the power which it can
exercise in criminal revision. Where there is evidence of whatsoever character on which a particular
finding of fact may be made the court is precluded from interfering with that finding. Legality and
propriety in the section would both include questions of law as to whether a finding or sentence was
legal or proper having regard to the evidence. The word ''correctness'' in the section does not mean
that the court may enquire whether the finding was acceptable to it on a balance of the evidence ;
the correctness of the finding or order implies a legal defence such as the finding being based on
the entire want of evidence.756
(c) Interference when justified?-In revision, the High Court ordinarily accepts conclusion of facts of
the Sessions Judge, but where the Sessions Judge has miscreaded, misquoted and omitted to
consider material evidence, the High Court in revision will be called upon to undertake the task of
poring over the manuscript evidence to do full justice to the case.757 The High Court will not set
aside a conviction and sentence in revision unless the record shows that the evidence is not
capable of sustaining it.758 However, where the Sessions Judge has referred to and discussed the
evidence on record and has held the evidence to be sufficient to make out a case for framing of
charge and High Court does not find any reason to think that the Sessions Judge has misread,
misunderstood or misappreciated the evidence, there is nothing to justify interference by the High
Court.759
(d) No substitution of judgment.-In revision, the revisional court will not substitute its own
judgment in place of the one of the trial court by re-appreciating the evidence.760 The uniform
practice of the High Court is not to exercise its power of upsetting a finding on fact, except for
some very extraordinary reason, and the circumstance that the High Court itself might have come to
a different conclusion is not such a reason.761 While sitting in revision, the High Court does not
ordinarily re-appreciate evidence. The fact that a different view can be taken from what has been
taken by the lower court is no ground to interfere.762
(vi) Appellate findings to be preferred to those of first instance.-The practice of the Allahabad
High Court is that unless very strong grounds for an opposite course are found, the findings of the
lower appellate court should be accepted and not of the court of first instance on the facts of the
case.763 Where the lower appellate court is not justified in interfering with the discretion of the trial
court, though the High Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the lower appellate
court in revision, interests of justice may require setting aside the order of the lower court.764 In
criminal cases there is no such statutory restriction to the exercising of the High Court's jurisdiction.
As a matter of practice, the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the conclusions of the
lower appellate court on questions of fact, but the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact
when the occasion requires it, and the High Court will not hesitate to do so on being satisfied that
the finding is manifestly erroneous and a miscarriage of justice would result from it.765 Failure of the
Magistrate to make notes of local inspection is only an irregularity and where there is ample
evidence on record to support the Magistrate's conclusion and there has not been failure of justice
50/115
3/15/13
on account of this irregularity, the High Court will not interfere in revision.766 Unless there is
something on the face of the record showing that the accused has been prejudiced in any way by
the conduct of retrial in the court below, the High Court would, in revision, accept the findings of
fact of the appellate court.767 The Sessions Judge has rejected the evidence of a witness because
so some defect in the Mahazar. It has been held that Mahazar is not substantive evidence and can
be used only to corroborate the evidence of a witness.
Where trial court has accepted and believed the evidence of the witness as such, the Sessions
Judge is not correct in not relying on the evidence of the witness.768 Where an appellate court has
dealt with the evidence carefully and has not omitted to consider any relevant or important portion
of the evidence, the High Court would not interfere in revision with findings of fact of the appellate
court.769 Revision on the presumption that the Sub-Magistrate is a better Judge of fact than the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot be granted.770 Accused is convicted by Judicial Magistrate under
sections 323 and 342, I.P.C., on reappraisal of evidence the Sessions Judge does not accept
conviction under section 323, I.P.C., but does not disbelieve the prosecution evidence with regard
to offence under section 342, I.P.C.
There being no grounds to hold that the decision of the courts below convicting accused under
section 342, I.P.C., is incorrect, illegal or improper, the High Court in revision will not disturb it.771
Sitting as a court of revision, the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the
court of first appeal, when there is evidence which if believed supports such findings. However, if
there are special circumstances, such as that the Magistrate who convicted the accused had not
the benefit of weighing the prosecution evidence first hand or that on a very important point
regarding credibility of the prosecution story the Sessions Judge has expressed no definite opinion,
the High Court will yield to the prayer for a re-scrutiny of the whole evidence.772 However, the
finding of the lower appellate court will not be accepted as a finding of fact if it is arrived at in a
very summary manner without referring to all the relevant laws on the subject.773
26. No revision of findings of fact except on most exceptional grounds
(i) Concurrent findings of fact.-Ordinarily, the High Court would not in revision, go behind the
concurrent findings of the courts below on a question of fact.774 The High Court's power of
interference in revision with findings of fact is one that should be sparingly used.775 Where, on
perusal of judgments of both courts below, it is found that it is only after careful consideration of
the evidence on record that both the courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding of guilty,
there is no reason to differ with their finding.776 The finding of fact by the two courts below does
not call for any interference by the High Court when it is concurrent and when it is supported by the
evidence.777
In a revision against conviction under section 379, I.P.C. where both courts below have come to the
finding that it is the opposite party who as bhag chasi is in possession of the land and has raised
the crops on the land and the High Court finds that there is evidence to support the conclusion,
there is no sufficient ground to disturb the finding of the lower courts.778 There is no reason for the
High Court, in revision, to disturb concurrent finding of fact by the lower courts.779 In a revision
under section 401 the High Court is not to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at
by the lower courts unless the findings are wholly foolish and perverse.780
Where the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the trial court was based on appreciation of the
evidence, the High Court was not inclined to interfere with the same in revision.781
Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts
below specially by reappreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction.782
(a) Direct and medical evidence.-Where there is concurrent finding relying on direct evidence of
witnesses regarding extra-judicial confession and the finding is corroborated by medical evidence
and nothing has been pointed out to show that the finding is grossly erroneous or perverse, the High
Court on its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with such finding.783
(b) Sound appreciation of evidence.-The concurrent finding of fact recorded by courts below based
on sound appreciation of evidence cannot be challenged in revision.784 Where the findings of both
the courts below cannot be said to be vitiated either by absence of evidence or by nonwww.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompID=16866&actid=783&iPage=1&hText=
51/115
3/15/13
consideration of evidence on record, these findings cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional

jurisdiction.785
(c) No error of fact or law.-When neither the trial court nor the appellate court has committed any
error of fact or law in arriving at the conclusion, the High Court is not to upset their concurrent
findings in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.786 Where neither the trial court nor the Sessions
Judge committed any error of fact or of law in arriving at their conclusions, the High Court
misdirected itself in upsetting their concurrent findings ignoring the well-recognised principles for the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction and acquitting the accused.787
(d) Appreciation of evidence not erroneous.-Where both the lower courts have discussed and
appreciated the evidence and there is nothing to show that their appreciation is in any way
erroneous, the concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed in revision.788 A finding of the courts
below which is a pure finding of fact, supported by evidence, cannot be interfered with in
revision.789 Findings of facts arrived at by two courts on a proper appreciation of evidence cannot
be challenged in revision.790
Where the two courts below have consistently held that the accused by creating row prevented the
Food Inspector from taking sample, there is nothing for the High Court to hold otherwise. In revision,
there is no scope for interference by the High Court with concurrent findings of the court below.791
A court of revision should not reject as unfounded the concurrent findings of courts below solely on
the ground of some inconsequential discrepancies in evidence.792 It will not be just and proper for
High Court to interfere with concurrent finding of fact by lower courts arrived at not perfunctorily
but by process of well grounded reasonings, while exercising powers of revisional jurisdiction.793
Concurrent finding of guilty by the courts below which has not been shown to be erroneous or
perverse is not available to be assailed in revision.794
(ii) Grounds for interference.-Ordinarily the High Court will not while sitting in revision in a criminal
case, interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below on a question of fact but when it is
based on no evidence or where vital evidence has been overlooked in its true perspective, the court
must interfere.795 The High Court may in revision investigate the fact of any case if necessary but
as a general rule, it does not interfere with findings of fact, fairly and properly, arrived at by the
court below.796
High Court's powers of revision The High Court does not interfere in revision with findings of fact
except in exceptional cases such as where the lower courts have approached the case from a
wrong point of view and the evidence produced has not received due consideration, where the
findings of fact are not based on evidence on the record and is proved to be wrong from the record
itself, where the judgment of the lower court is palpably wrong, where there has been a miscarriage
of justice or where the case appears to be doubtful against the accused and the benefit of doubt
has not been given797 or where there has been conviction of a clearly innocent person.798 However,
concurrent findings of the courts below founded on dependable evidence cannot be assailed in
revision petition. The High Court in revision will not interfere with a finding of fact which has been
arrived at on legal evidence used in a proper fashion.799
Findings of fact arrived at by the court below, on consideration of evidence, cannot be challenged
in revision.800 However, where the Magistrate has not appraised the material evidence for the
prosecution and the reason given by him for such non-appraisal is highly frivolous and untenable,
the judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained.801
(a) Special reasons.-The practice of the High Court is not to interfere with a finding of fact unless
there are special reasons. It will not, save on the ground of an error of law or where the question is
one of evidence, on exceptional grounds exercise the powers of an appellate court. But where such
exceptional grounds exist, the court will exercise its discretion under section 401 and reverse its
conviction and sentence.802 A court of revision will not ordinarily reassess evidence and interfere
merely because view of trial court as to evidence does not commend to itself.803
(b) Manifest illegality.- However, the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to overt
acts attributed to the accused cannot be assailed in revision when they do not suffer from manifest
illegality or any glaring error which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.804 Where the trial court
52/115
3/15/13
was in a position to mark the demeanour of the witness, the High Court in revision will not disagree
on the appraisal of the evidence made by the court of fact.805 So long as the court has considered
and estimated the evidence, its decision, generally speaking, is entitled to be upheld and should not
be disturbed even if the revisional court considers that while sitting as a court of original
jurisdiction, it would have come to a different conclusion on the evidence.806 The inference from the
available material being a finding of facts, there is no scope for interference while exercising
revisional jurisdiction.807
(c) Running of an eating house with licence.-Where the Magistrate has come to a correct decision
that an eating house cannot be run without a licence under section 442 of the Calcutta Municipal
Act and the Magistrate has not overlooked the material evidence, the order passed by him is not
liable to be interfered with under section 401.808 Where in revision, the High Court interferes with
concurrent findings of fact and acquits the accused, the judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained.809 There is no justification for the High Court to have interfered with the concurrent
finding of the lower courts that the age of the accused on the date of offence is above 16
years.810
Where in a trial for an offence under section 406, I.P.C., the point for determination was one of fact
depending on appreciation of oral evidence, and the trial court had dealt with the matter fully and
was satisfied that the case of prosecution had been established, the High Court on revision can
rightly decline to interfere with the finding.811 Where the Sessions Judge has found conduct of a
prosecution witness to be unusual and has drawn sustenance for his view from several surrounding
circumstances admitted by prosecution witnesses, conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Judge
cannot be termed as perverse and unreasonable to warrant interference.812 The High Court will not
interfere in revision except in very rare cases when the question involved is as to whether a place is
or is not a public place, as such a question is one of fact for decision on evidence in each particular
case.813
(iii) Appeal and revision.-The High Court is averse to interfering on facts by way of revision as
that would remove the difference specifically laid down by statute between appeal and revision. The
trial Magistrate is entitled to his opinion on facts even where he has not acted, according to a
superior court, with "fair-mindedness and breath of vision".814 Where there are concurrent findings
of fact recorded by courts below that the applicants did defame the complainant, the High Court, in
a revision, would not sit as a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence.815
A High Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to entertain a revision on grounds of fact, but it is equally
well-established that this power should be very sparingly exercised. There is a well-marked
distinction between an application in revision and an appeal. It would be futile for the Legislature to
grant the right of appeal in some cases and to withhold it in others if the High Court under the guise
of a revision were to allow conclusions of fact based on evidence to be canvassed and attacked, on
the footing of an appeal. Broadly speaking, the rule is that the High Court will only entertain a
revision on facts where either there is no evidence to support the finding or where the finding
arrived at is perverse or such as no reasonable man could have arrived at on the evidence
produced.816 However unsatisfactory a finding may be, the High Court is not to interfere where
judgment is based purely on assessment of evidence in a revision against acquittal.817 Whether the
Master-Plan has specified a particular use of a particular building and whether the person
prosecuted has violated the law under section 14 of the Development Act is a question of fact as
such High Court cannot interfere.818
(a) Error of law or procedure or misapprehension of evidence, etc.-The High Court, while it acts in
revision, is bound to accept the finding of the lower court unless there is any error of law or
procedure vitiating that finding or unless there are any special circumstances apparent on the
record to show that, in arriving at its conclusion of fact, the lower court has misapprehended the
evidence.819 It is the settled practice of the High Court to refuse to interfere in the exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction, in regard to findings of fact, save on very exceptional grounds such as a misstatement of evidence by the lower court or the misconstruction of documents, or the placing by
that court of the onus of proof on the accused contrary to the law of evidence.820 Only in cases of
defective investigation, of failure to consider important evidence, of consideration of evidence from
a wrong point of view, of contravention of any provisions of law and of conviction upon facts which
53/115
3/15/13
will not support the same will the High Court exercise its revisional powers.821 The High Court is
usually averse to interfere in revision where the two lower courts have concurred in a finding of fact
and where there is nothing illegal or erroneous in the procedure of the Magistrate.822
(b) Inadmissible evidence.-Where in coming to the conclusion that certain document is a fabricated
document, the lower court is considerably influenced by inadmissible evidence, the High Court will
interfere, in revision.823 Where, however, no perversity or non-application of mind to any aspect
can be attached to the assessment and evaluation of evidence made by courts below, even though
a different view is available to be drawn from the materials on record, that shall not be a ground for
interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction.824
(c) Questions of jurisdiction and good faith.-The question of want of jurisdiction of the court of
Sub-Divisional Magistrate to forfeit the bond amount is interlaced with question of fact and cannot
be raised at the time of revision.825 The question of good faith in a defamation case is a question of
fact and the High Court will not be justified in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of
the courts below on that question. It is the practice of the court in all cases of revision to confine
its interference, as a rule, to points of illegality or error in procedure, and not to interfere with
findings of fact unless a miscarriage of justice is shown to have resulted.826
(d) Trustworthyness of evidence.-Whether the evidence of a particular witness is trustworthy or
not, is a finding of fact, and the High Court will not interfere in revision with a reasonable finding of
fact.827 Generally the High Court will not interfere with or differ from the opinion of the trial courts
regarding the credibility of witnesses. But where the acceptance of the opinion will lead to
miscarriage of justice, the High Court will certainly interfere.828
(e) Findings under section 125.-A finding in proceedings under section 125, that the parties were
married as husband and wife is one of fact and cannot be challenged in revision.829 In a proceeding
under section 125, whether the wife is the married wife of the husband and whether the child is the
legitimate or illegitimate child are questions of fact. Therefore, as pointed out by the Supreme
Court, the High Court would be committing an error in making a reassessment of the evidence and in
revision would not be justified in substituting its own view.830
(f) Instances of non-interferable findings of fact.-A finding that there was apprehension of a breach
of peace is not open to be challenged in revision.831 A finding as to possession of a disputed site in
a proceeding under section 145 based on documentary evidence is a finding of fact which cannot be
called in question in revision.832 The question whether the principal object of a criminal act was the
acquisition of property or interference with another's enjoyment is primarily a question of fact : and
where the lower courts concur in finding that the acts proved and the intention with which they
were done constitute the offence of theft, such a finding cannot be taken up in revision and
interfered with in revision.833 A finding as to absence of good faith is one of fact and is conclusive
in revision.834 A finding by the lower court that there did exist a general conspiracy is a finding
which cannot be challenged before the High Court.835 The question of the value of evidence of
accounts resolves itself into a question of fact. The lower court's view with regard to the accounts
should be accepted as a finding of fact. In revisional proceedings, it is not open to the petitioners
to ask the High Court to estimate whether the evidence was sufficient or not and cannot be
interfered with in revision.836
(iv) Interference where justified.-The High Court may interfere with the finding of facts in the
following cases.
(a) Inferences drawn not warranted by evidence.-An application for revision may be admitted
where several inferences not warranted by the evidence had been drawn to the prejudice of the
accused.837 A finding of fact is not usually interfered with in revision : but if the finding is not based
on any positive evidence but upon inference drawn from certain circumstances arising from the
evidence and all the materials on which the finding is based are set forth in the judgments of the
courts below, it is open to the accused to ask the High Court to consider if the conclusions arrived
at by the courts below are warranted by these materials.838 Where the lower courts have, in
certain of the charges, erred in their inferences from facts as found, and have found the accused
guilty of offences which are not constituted by such facts, the High Court will interfere in revision,
in exercise of the powers conferred by section 401.839 The High Court will set aside the finding of a
54/115
3/15/13
lower court when the inference drawn by it from proved facts seems to be unwarranted.840
Ordinarily, the High Court would not differ from the finding of the lower courts on facts directly
establishing an offence where those findings are concurrent, but where the lower court has drawn
erroneous inferences from circumstances which really did not exist and failed to take a right view of
the evidence, the High Court will interfere in the interest of the accused who has been wrongly
convicted.841
(b) Evidence totally misconceived.-The High Court may also exercise its revisional powers even as
regards findings of fact, in cases where the lower court has totally misconceived the evidence and
come to an obviously wrong conclusion.842
(c) Finding based on no evidence.-Normally, the High Court will not go to interfere with any finding
of fact in revision. But if any finding is found to be perverse in not being based on any evidence, or
when arriving at a finding the court below illegally shifts onus of proof to a party, the High Court can
and should interfere with such finding.843
(d) Conviction based on no evidence.844 -The High Court would quash a conviction when it was not
supported by any legal evidence, e.g., where the only evidence was the admission of a coaccused.845 A finding of fact on no evidence or inadmissible evidence is liable to be set aside on
revision.846 The question that there was no legally admissible evidence against the accused is
rather one of law than of fact.847 The concurrent findings of the courts below would be set aside by
the High Court in revision on the ground that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge.848
(e) Failure by lower court to critically consider evidence.-In 23 CWN 488, the High Court in revision
set aside an order under section 110, on a consideration of the evidence on the ground that as to
some important evidence the lower courts in their judgments failed to consider it at all, while as to
others they were accepted and relied on without any critical examination. The High Court could and
does interfere in criminal revision, even with concurrent findings of fact where the conscience of the
court is satisfied that in the broad interests of justice the conviction is not sustainable ; or where
the conviction is not sustainable in certain respects, because vital evidence has been overlooked or
has not been given due consideration.849 Where on an examination of the record, the High Court
finds that the weight of evidence is in favour of the accused and the lower courts have not given
due weight to the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused, the High Court will interfere.850
Where the courts below have not applied their minds properly to the defence set up by the
accused, and consequently there has been a failure of justice, it is necessary for the High Court to
interfere.851
Where the Magistrate had failed to take note of the statement of the accused under section 313 to
consider the allegation of the prosecution it was held that the High Court had to interfere with its
revisional jurisdiction in the findings of the court below as it had omitted to apply its mind to the
materials on record.852
(f) Evidence on record not bringing crime home to accused.-A finding of fact can be challenged in
revision if it is not based upon the evidence on the record and is proved to be wrong from the
record itself.853 Where the evidence on record does not bring the crime home to the accused, the
High Court will interfere. A conviction should not be based upon what the court considers the
witnesses ought to have said but upon what they actually do say. If by reason of a witness having
been won over the evidence against the accused becomes too weak, to justify a conviction, the
case for the prosecution falls to the ground.854 The High Court, in the exercise of revisional powers,
would set aside the orders of conviction of the accused under section 420, I.P.C., on the ground
that, on the record, the accused cannot with any certainty be said to have himself made away with
Government money in any of the cases concerned.855 Even a unanimous finding of fact by the lower
courts, without due regard to the evidence on the record, is liable to be set aside on revision under
section 401.856
(g) Evidence where may be reappreciated.-Where no active role is assigned to one accused and
others who had played active role in the crime are discharged, the High Court in revision can reappreciate evidence and disturb concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts.857
(h) Correction of error.-Where the conclusion of the Magistrate is grossly and palpably unjust or is
55/115
3/15/13
based upon a manifestly erroneous approach and erroneous appraisal of evidence, and further the
Magistrate has misconceived the evidence and has come to an obviously wrong conclusion, the
revisional court will be fully justified to go into the facts and correct the error in the judgment of the
Magistrate.858
(i) Serious discrepancy unnoticed by the lower courts.-A conviction based on evidence having a
serious discrepancy therein, of which no notice appears to have been taken by both the lower
courts, is liable to be set aside on revision under this section.859
(j) Finding based on false and unreliable evidence.-Although it is unusual to look into the evidence in
a case in revision and although a finding of fact arrived at is not disturbed in revision, yet if the
finding arrived at, has been based on false, unreliable and inadmissible evidence, the High Court will
interfere in revision.860 When evidence against an accused is weak, suspicious and inconclusive, the
High Court can, on its revision side, examine and discuss the evidence on record, upset the
concurrent findings of fact by both the lower courts and set aside the conviction.861 There were
two cross-complaints one by M against C, and his son R, and the other by C, against M and three
others. The Magistrate acquitted M, and the three accused, but convicted C, fined him Rs. 30 and
acquitted his son R. The conviction against C and R, was the same. On appeal the court gave a
finding which was equivalent to rejecting evidence as unreliable, but upheld the conviction and for
the fine it substituted an order under section 360, supra, for security for keeping the peace. On
revision, the conviction and the order demanding security were set aside, on the ground that no
distinction could be drawn between C, and R, and none of the evidence seemed reliable and it was
difficult to say which party was the aggressor.862 Where the persons, who restored the stolen
property to its owner, deposed that it was recovered from the petitioner and he was consequently
convicted under section 457, I.P.C., but no name of any burglar was given in the first report to the
police, it was held that their evidence was not reliable under the circumstances of the case.863
When there was no mention of assault in the original report made by the police, except use of
abusive language, conviction under section 323, I.P.C., was bad in law and liable to be set aside on
revision.864
Though, sitting as a revisional court the High Court is not expected to appreciate and assess the
value of the evidence for the first time, the High Court would interfere in revision but where the
conviction is influenced by inadmissible evidence, apart from the fact that the law as to accomplice
evidence is not applied properly to the facts of the case.865
(k) Guilt of the accused doubtful.-Where the probabilities are against the prosecution and in favour
of the defence, the High Court would give the benefit of doubt to the accused.866 When a case is
ab initio improbable and there is enmity between the parties, the conviction must be set aside on
revision notwithstanding concurrent findings of fact by the courts below.867 When the complainant
is an enemy of the accused and other circumstances of the case make the charge against him
doubtful, he is entitled to be acquitted even in revision.868 Where the accused is convicted in the
absence of independent evidence when there is admittedly enmity between the parties, he must be
acquitted.869 Where with reference to the first report at the Thana and other circumstances, the
case against an accused person is very doubtful, the benefit of doubt should be given to the
accused and in such a case, even the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts are liable to
be set aside in revision.870 Where neither the trial court nor the appellate court personally inspected
a phataka in order to come to a finding that it was not a toy-work, the High Court in revision would
refuse to be bound by the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two courts and on a personal
inspection would come to a different finding that the phataka was a toy-work and not a firework
within the meaning of R. 35 of the explosive rules.871
(l) Conviction based on explainable circumstantial evidence.-In a case which depends wholly on
circumstantial evidence, the question whether the circumstances taken as a whole amount to
conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused or not has often to be considered even by a court of
revision especially when from the judgment of the lower court, it does not appear that it was alive
to the rule governing cases of circumstantial evidence.872 It is not legal to convict only on
circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with commission of the crime specially when it can
be explained otherwise.873
(m) Conviction based on sole testimony of accomplice.-When the lower court, for special reasons,
56/115
3/15/13
convicts a person on the sole testimony of accomplices, after noticing section 133 of the Evidence
Act, the High Court will not interfere in revision, except for special reasons. But where the lower
court is of opinion that his evidence has been corroborated, the High Court may consider whether
such corroboration is sufficient in law, and, if there is no corroboration, whether it can be sustained
on the accomplice's evidence.874 Where the lower court has not properly performed the duty of
scrutinising the corroborative evidence, the High Court will interfere and set aside even the
concurrent findings of the courts below.875 Ordinarily, it is not usual for the High Court to interfere
in revision with a decision of the lower court when that decision is based upon a consideration of
the evidence on the record. But where the evidence is that of accomplices and the lower appellate
court has not given due weight to this factor and has upheld the conviction of the accused upon
the tainted evidence of accomplices, the conviction cannot be upheld by the High Court in
revision.876 It is open to an accused person in revision to contend that he has been convicted on
the strength of tainted evidence alone. A conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an
accomplice is liable to be set aside in revision.877
27. Interference with acquittals
(i) General rule.-The High Court does not ordinarily interfere in revision with judgments of
acquittal, unless there has been a gross error or grave injustice878 or unless there has been illegality
in the proceedings of the court which ordered the acquittal or unless the order has been made
without jurisdiction.879 In other words, the powers of the High Court to interfere in revision with an
order of acquittal is fairly limited and cannot be lightly exercised except in exceptional cases where
the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the
prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.880 The High Court's power to interfere in revision with
an order of acquittal should be exercised only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring
defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has
been a flagrant miscarriage of justice such as when the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the
case, or where the trial court had wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to
produce or where appellate court had wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court
to be inadmissible or where material evidence has been overlooked by the trial court or where the
acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.881 Therefore,
several limitations have been imposed on High Court's power to interfere with an acquittal, that too
at the instance of private party when the State has not preferred any appeal.882 The High Court
cannot interfere in revision with an order of acquittal unless there is a glaring defect in the
procedure or there is manifest error on point of law and consequent flagrant miscarriage of
justice.883 Section 401(3) expressly provides that the section shall not be deemed to authorise the
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The High Court taking the matter
on revision cannot substitute an order of conviction to an order of acquittal even if it is satisfied
that the order of conviction is warranted in view of embargo in section 401(3).884 When the State
Government has not preferred an appeal under section 378, the High Court ought not to interfere in
revision on a reference under section 399, where it cannot do so without practically hearing the
case on the evidence885 or where considerable delay has taken place in the commencement of
proceedings.886 Where the prosecution is extremely negligent and is guilty of laches in not taking
steps to produce witnesses in spite of repeated issue of summons, the Magistrate could not be said
to have committed any illegality in passing order of acquittal, there being no incriminating evidence
against accused and, therefore, it is not a fit case for interfering in revision.887 There is no doubt
that in the exercise of its powers under section 101, the High Court can in appropriate cases set
aside an order of acquittal and order retrial. But it will do so only when the case is of a serious
nature. From this point of view, offences under sections 346, 341 and 357 cannot be regarded as
serious, having regard to the punishment provided therein.888 The High Court will not ordinarily
interfere to set aside acquittals in cases of petty assaults.889
Where the accused is charged under section 307, I.P.C., but convicted under section 326, I.P.C.
and there is no appeal against the acquittal under section 307, I.P.C., having regard to section
401(3), the High Court cannot in revision convert the acquittal into a conviction but can enhance
the punishment awarded under section 326, I.P.C.890
However, where the proceedings are dropped for want of jurisdiction of maintainability without a
decision on merits, the order cannot be treated as an order of acquittal and revision against the
57/115
3/15/13
order is maintainable.891
Where there has not been an acquittal altogether for the offence, the bar of revisional court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction under section 401(3) cannot operate.892
(ii) High Court will not ordinarily interfere suo motu with an order of acquittal.-Where no
appeal has been preferred against an order of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, the High Court does
not ordinarily interfere in revision suo motu to set aside the order of acquittal.893
In an appeal by State against acquittal, the accused are not entitled to challenge conviction as
they have not preferred appeal against conviction. Suo motu revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised
with extreme care and caution and its exercise will be justified only where the interests of justice
demand interference.894
High Court has no jurisdiction to convert acquittal into conviction on suo motu exercise of
jurisdiction.895
(iii) Application in revision by private prosecutor in case of acquittal.-Section 378 empowers a
complainant to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal passed in any case
instituted upon complaint, if the High Court, on an application made to it by him, grants special
leave to appeal.896 If he does not proceed under this provision, he would obviously be precluded by
section 401(4) from presenting an application for revision. If, however, his application for the grant
of special leave to appeal is refused by the High Court after considering the circumstances of the
case, the High Court will naturally be reluctant to entertain an application for revision by him,
although it may not be debarred from doing so by section 401(4).
Under the old section 378, only the State Government could file an appeal against an order of
acquittal and a private complainant could only move the State Government to do so. He was,
therefore, not precluded by section 401(4) from applying to the High Court in revision. It was held
that where no attempt to move Government was made by him, interference with acquittal in revision
at his instance was not justifiable.897 Some cases held that where the offence was of so essentially
a personal character, that Government would seldom be willing to appeal from an acquittal, the
ordinary rule as to non-interference with acquittal could not be easily applied.898
A private party has no locus standi to move against an order of acquittal passed upon an application
made under section 321 by the public prosecutor.899
An order passed by High Court in revision against acquittal filed by private party by observing "no
ground to interfere. Dismissed" was not approved by Apex Court.900
(a) Exceptional cases.-The Supreme Court ruled that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court,
when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the Government
has a right of appeal under section 378, could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the
interest of public justice required interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention
of gross miscarriage of justice and that the jurisdiction was not ordinarily used merely because the
lower court had taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on record.901 To the
same effect are the decisions of the High Courts.902
The extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of interfering in revision against an
order of acquittal at the instance of a private complainant, was again considered by the Supreme
Court in a recent case. Their Lordships state the law as follows. It is true that it is open to a High
Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though
the State may not have thought it fit to appeal ; but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the
High Court only in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a
manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
Sub-section (3) of section 401, forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one
of convictions, and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not
convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial,
when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places
limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only
in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. These exceptional cases may be : where
the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the
58/115
3/15/13
trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the
appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or
where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or
where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. Where
the appeal court wrongly ruled out evidence which was admissible, the High Court would be justified
in interfering with the order of acquittal in revision. But the High Court should confine itself only to
the admissibility of the evidence and should not go further and appraise the evidence also. In such a
case the only course open to the High Court is to set aside the acquittal and send the case back to
the trial court for retrial. But there may be another type of case, namely where the trial court has
convicted the accused while the appeal court has acquitted him. In such a case, if the conclusion
of the High Court is that the order of the appeal court must be set aside, the question arises
whether the appeal court should be ordered to re-hear the appeal after admitting the statement it
had ruled out or whether there should necessarily be a retrial. So far as this is concerned, it is open
to the High Court to order a retrial or it may order the appeal court to re-hear the appeal. Where
the entire evidence has been led and it was the appeal court which ruled out the evidence that had
been admitted by the trial court, the proper course is to direct the appeal court to re-hear the
appeal and either to maintain the conviction after taking into consideration the evidence which was
ruled out by it previously or to acquit the accused if that is the just course to take.903
Where the court did not exclude the evidence in question but held that its evidentiary value was nil
and the High Court in revision thought that the evidence should have been believed and set aside
the order of acquittal passed by the lower court, the Supreme Court held that the order passed by
the High Court under section 401 was based merely and solely on the conclusion which it reached
on re-appreciating evidence for itself. The conclusion of the lower court which led to the acquittal
of the appellants did not suffer from any legal infirmity on the strength of which the High Court's
jurisdiction under section 401 could have been legitimately invoked.904
Revisional jurisdiction invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which
the Government has a right of appeal but has not appealed, can be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances and not only because the lower court has taken a wrong view or misappreciated the
evidence, unless the interest of public justice requires interference for correction of a manifest
illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.905
(b) No reappreciation of evidence.-In a revision petition by the complainant against order of
acquittal, the High Court, in absence of any error of law cannot re-appraise evidence or reverse
finding of fact on which acquittal is based. The High Court cannot order retrial when such an order
would be tantamount to convert acquittal into conviction.906 In a case which proceeds on a police
report, it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside order of acquittal even at the instance of
private parties though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should be
exercised only where there is some glaring defect in procedure or manifest error on a point of law,
want of jurisdiction or improper admission or rejection of material evidence and consequent flagrant
miscarriage of justice. But it cannot re-appraise the evidence.907
(c) Revision against acquittal by com plainant in case instituted on complaint.-See Note under
section 378, supra.
(iv) High Court will not ordinarily set aside acquittal on the merits.-Though sub-section (1) of
section 401, authorises the High Court to exercise, in its discretion, any of the powers conferred on
a court of appeal by section 386, sub-section (3) specifically excludes the power to "convert a
finding of acquittal into one of conviction". This does not mean that in dealing with a revision
petition by a private party against an order of acquittal the High Court could in the absence of any
error on a point of law reappraise the evidence and reverse the findings of facts on which the
acquittal was based, provided only it stopped short of finding the accused guilty and passing
sentence on him by ordering a retrial. By merely characterising the judgment of the trial court as
"perverse" and "lacking in perspective", the High Court cannot reverse pure findings of fact based on
the trial court's appreciation of the evidence in the case.908
(a) Warning by the Supreme Court.-The ruling in AIR 1951 SC 316, cited above stresses that having
regard to the provisions of section 401(3) the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into
one of conviction even indirectly by ordering retrial. What had happened in that case was that the
High Court reversed pure findings of facts based on the trial court's appreciation of evidence but
formally complied with sub-section (3) by directing only a retrial of the accused without convicting
59/115
3/15/13
them, and warned that the court retrying the case should not be influenced by any expression of
opinion contained in the judgment of the High Court. In that connection, the Supreme Court
observed that there could be little doubt that the dice was loaded against the accused and it might
prove difficult for any subordinate judicial officer conducting the retrial to put aside altogether the
strong views expressed in the judgment as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the
circumstances of the case in general. In a later case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed
that the High Court should not deal with evidence in detail when it is going to order a retrial, as
such detailed consideration of evidence amounts to loading the dice against the accused when the
case goes back for retrial.909
The High Court would decline to go into the merits of a case on the revisional side, unless there is
something to show that there has been a material departure from the legal principles according to
which the case ought to have been dealt with, or unless something is shown which particularly
indicates that it is desirable to enter into facts.910 But where the trying Magistrate in his judgment
by which he acquitted the accused, while laying great stress on all considerations that might affect
the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, omitted to consider what might be advanced in
their favour and also failed to appreciate the corroborative value of an important witness for the
prosecution, on the application of the complainant, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal
on the merits and directed a retrial by another Magistrate.911 When a case was not a criminal case
in the strict sense of the term e.g., a prosecution under the Municipalities Act, and concerned the
interest of a public body and was one of several cases of the same nature, which were pending in
the court below, the High Court examined the case on its merits and set aside the order of
acquittal.912 Where the accused who were prosecuted for breach of certain bye-laws framed under
the Municipalities Act were acquitted because the court was doubtful whether the bye-laws were
ultra vires or not, and the court also erroneously considered the question of intention to break the
bye-laws, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the municipal
committee.913
(b) No interference.-Where there has been an acquittal on the merits, and because the trying court
holds the evidence insufficient to prove the accused's guilt on the merits, the High Court cannot
interfere in revision.914 Where in deciding the case the courts below had brought a judicial mind to
bear upon the evidence, the order of acquittal should not be interfered with.915 Where the trial
court has jurisdiction to try the case, the court never shut out any evidence that prosecution had
desired to adduce, the case is not one where inadmissible evidence is admitted or material evidence
overlooked, there is no question of miscarriage of justice and High Court cannot entertain revision
against the order of acquittal.916
(c) No weighing of evidence afresh.-The High Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction would
not ordinarily take upon itself the task of weighing evidence afresh, and what it would consider is
whether the trial was regularly conducted and the law has been clearly understood and applied to
the proved or admitted facts of the case and there has been no mis-statement of evidence which
has led to a wrong conclusion.917 The orders of acquittal passed by appellate court cannot be set
aside in revision only on the ground that it failed to hear an injured witness.918 The High Court will
decline to consider whether the judgment sought to be revised is right or wrong on the merits.919
The fact that the Sessions Judge omitted to notice expressly an important portion of the evidence
against the accused is no ground for taking up the acquittal on the revision side of the High
Court.920 Where the Magistrate took one view of the evidence and the Sessions Judge took the
opposite view and there was no legal point or question of jurisdiction involved, the High Court would
refuse to interfere with an order of acquittal.921 The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal
which is based upon a finding of fact.922 Although the High Court is competent to entertain an
application to set aside an acquittal, it is not the custom to do so on a consideration of the
evidence at the instance of private individuals except in extreme cases.923 Where the investigating
officer fails himself to be examined, and a number of contradictions are elicited from the evidence of
the witnesses and on that ground and other grounds in the lower court the accused is given benefit
of doubt and he is acquitted, this is not a fit case where permission can be granted for filing revision
petition.924 In a revision from acquittal, the applicant offered to take the High Court through the
evidence to show that the weight of evidence was against the finding of the acquittal. It was held
that this course was not permissible in a revision from acquittal.925
60/115
3/15/13
(d) No interference with findings of fact.-The High Court will not interfere when the Judge has tried
the case in a regular way and passed an order of acquittal upon a consideration of all the material
evidence on the record, on the ground that the conclusions arrived at by him are not correct. Such
findings of facts are not interfered with in revision even in the case of a conviction ; much less they
ought to be interfered with in the case of an acquittal.926 Where the State has not chosen to file
an appeal against the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused on charge under section
302, I.P.C., in revision, this finding cannot be altered into one of conviction being barred under
section 401(3), Cr.P.C. As there has been no miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, retrial
cannot be ordered.927
(e) No interference on possibility of different view.-The mere possibility of the High Court taking a
different view of the evidence from that taken by the trial court is no ground for asking the High
Court to set aside an acquittal.928 The mere fact that the reasons given by the trial court for
doubting the evidence of certain witnesses do not commend themselves to a superior court is no
ground for interfering with order of acquittal.929
(f) Wrong conclusion on appreciation of evidence.-Where the sole question is one of appreciation of
evidence and even if the trial court has possibly come to a wrong decision, that alone is no ground
for entertaining a petition for revision against an order of acquittal, especially in the absence of an
appeal by the State Government.930 The fact that a Magistrate has passed an order of acquittal in
spite of evidence which would justify a conviction, is not a ground for directing a retrial on a
reference.931 The High Court would not move in revision in the case of an acquittal, unless there is
a glaring defect either in the procedure or in the view in which the evidence was taken by the court
below.932
(g) No perversity.-Where the order of the court below is not so perverse or contrary to the record
that to uphold it would be travesty of justice and would mean that a proved guilty person has been
wrongly acquitted, the exercise of the suo motu power of revision is not called for.933
Even where it is found that acquittal was not justified, retrial was not approved as the matter had
become 9 years old and in the meantime divorce had taken place.934
(v) Materials on which propriety of order of acquittal to be judged.-The court sitting in revision
has merely to see whether the case as laid by the prosecution was properly tried or not. An order of
acquittal has to be judged in the light of the case as presented by the complainant for trial in the
original court and not on the consideration of hypothetical case, that is a case which could have
been but was not raised in that court.935
Where, in trial for offences under sections 323 and 147, I.P.C., the Magistrate acquits the accused,
on the basis of composition of the offence under section 323, I.P.C., but regarding the offence
under section 147, I.P.C., he drops the proceedings, the order of the Magistrate for dropping the
proceedings can only be construed to be an order of discharge and not one of acquittal and as such
the revision application is competent.936
(vi) High Court when may interfere with orders of acquittal.-The High Court may interfere with
orders of acquittal in the following cases :
Where the trial Judge acquits the accused in a murder case only on the basis of police investigation,
such judgement was reversed, being patently wrong causing miscarriage of justice.937
(a) Order of acquittal without jurisdiction.-The powers possessed by the court under section 401
are very wide. Though the court cannot convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction, yet
there is nothing to bar the setting aside of the order of acquittal, when the order is one wholly
without jurisdiction.938 Where the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to make an order of acquittal, the
complainant being absent, such an order can be corrected in revision.939 Under section 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section
138, except upon a complaint in writing, made by the payee or the holder in due course, of the
cheque. The Magistrate taking cognizance on the police charge-sheet is a glaring defect in the
procedure. The order of acquittal is set aside.940
(b) Judgment of acquittal based on erroneous view of law.-Although the High Court is not precluded
by a judgment of acquittal from exercising its powers of revision, such powers will only be exercised
61/115
3/15/13
where the judgment of acquittal has proceeded on an error of law and not where it has proceeded
on an error of fact.941 When a judgment of acquittal is clearly erroneous on a point of law, the High
Court has power to set it aside.942 Where an order of acquittal is based not upon an appreciation of
doubtful evidence, but upon a manifest error in law appearing on the face of the judgment, the High
Court does not hesitate to interfere.943 Where the State Government has declined to take action,
the discretion of the High Court cannot be allowed to be fettered in any way and where there has
been an error of law, the High Court would interfere in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.944
(1) ADMITTED FACTS CONSTITUTING OFFENCE.-Where the facts admitted and proved constituted
the offence of cheating, but the Magistrate illegally acquitted the accused, the chief court set
aside the acquittal on revision under section 401 and directed his retrial.945
(2) CHEATING ALLEGED BUT FRAUD FOUND.-Where, in a prosecution for cheating, the lower court
found that the accused had acted fraudulently but held that the fraud was inchoate and acquitted
the accused, it was held that on the finding of fraud a conviction ought to have followed and that
the case should be remitted.946
(3) PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY.-Though the High Court does not generally interfere in revision with
acquittals, yet when a Magistrate has without exercise of discretion acquitted on an erroneous view
of the law in a case involving public tranquillity there is good reason for the High Court to set aside
such an acquittal.947
(4) ASSAULT ON OFFICER OF COURT.-Where the accused was acquitted on account of wrong
appreciation of a point of law with the result that an assault on an officer of court while on duty,
had been allowed to go unpunished, the acquittal was set aside.948
(5) INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.-Where an accused was acquitted under the Copyright Act on a
wrong view of the law, the High Court directed a retrial, as the matter was of great importance to
the complainant in his position as the author of the book, which will be pirated by another who will
secure for himself the gains that ought legitimately to go to the petitioner.949
(6) WRONG APPLICATION OF LAW.-Where an appellate court sets aside an order of conviction
wrongly considering that the proceedings in the trial court were without jurisdiction on a wrong
application of the provisions of law, the High Court will interfere.950 As pointed out by the Supreme
Court, where the Magistrate's order of discharge is virtually an order of "acquittal" and the order is
manifestly illegal the High Court has power to interfere with such a patently illegal order of acquittal
in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 401 and direct retrial, and that order of the High
Court is not barred by section 300.951 As a matter of practice, the High Court would not in revision
set aside an order of acquittal on an appreciation of evidence ; but, if the finding of acquittal is
based on an erroneous view of the law, the High Court can interfere.952 The High Court has the
power to interfere in revision with acquittals in which by reason of a gross error of law or of
procedure there has been a failure of justice.953
(7) CASE UNDER S. 323, I.P.C.-Ordinarily the High Court would not interfere with an order of
acquittal, specially in a case under section 323, I.P.C., but would do so if it appears to it that the
trying Magistrate has acquitted the accused owing to a wrong view of the law.954
(8) CLEAR DEFIANCE OF LAW OR VIOLATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES.-Where an order of acquittal is in
clear defiance of the provisions of law and has resulted in manifest injustice to the complainant, it
could be interfered with on a reference made upon the complainant's application for revision.955
Section 401(3) places limitation on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in
revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised.956 The High Court
does not interfere with acquittal unless it is satisfied that there has been a clear violation of the
legal principles involved in the case and it is necessary to set aside the decisions in order to prevent
irreparable injury. Where the acquittal is due to clear and serious error of law that a rival claimant
can enter and forcibly take away the property in the peaceful possession of another, it cannot be
allowed to stand and should be set aside.957
(9) NO PROPER TRIAL OF QUESTION.-Where the trying Magistrate failed to appreciate the questions
of fact which he had to determine in order to adjudicate on the plea of right of private defence and
acquitted the accused, and the brother of the complainant, who died during the trial, made an
62/115
3/15/13
application for revision of the order of acquittal to the High Court, it was held that the Magistrate
having failed to appreciate the question of fact which he had to determine in order to adjudicate on
the plea of private defence, there was no proper trial of the question and so there should be a
retrial.958
(10) PROCEDURE WHOLLY ILLEGAL.-Where the acquittal is the result of a wholly illegal procedure,
the High Court can interfere in revision and direct a retrial of the case.959 An order of acquittal
passed by trial court in the absence of complainant, will entail in miscarriage of justice if it is found
that the case was listed for appearance of accused only and as such can be set aside by High
Court under this section.960
(11) COMPLETE DISREGARD OF Cr.P.C.-The High Court rarely interferes with acquittals in revision
whether it is at the instance of Government or on behalf of private individuals. But when it comes to
the notice of the High Court that the acquittal in a case has depended not on an appreciation of
evidence, but has occurred in complete disregard of the Cr.P.C., the High Court shall interfere
despite the fact that no appeal has been preferred by Government.961
(12) MANIFESTLY WRONG VIEW ON SANCTION.-Where the Magistrate decided the case on a
preliminary point of law relating to sanction and the view taken by him was manifestly wrong the
complainant is denied the right to have his complaint decided on merits which the Magistrate was
bound to do had he not gone wrong on the question of sanction. Interests of justice therefore
require that there should be a complete decision in the circumstances of the case. The question of
injustice has not to be considered with relation to the accused only, and the complainant is also
entitled to consideration in that respect. Thus in such circumstances there is a fit case where
interference on the part of the court in revision is called for.962
(c) Acquittal based on invalid composition.-In a case where a person was killed in a fight, the
Magistrate accepted a compromise put in by the relatives of the deceased and acquitted the
accused, the High Court interfered in revision as no trial had been held to ascertain the exact
circumstances for the death owing to material irregularity of procedure by the Magistrate.963 Where
the procedure adopted by the trial Magistrate is so irregular or illegal as to vitiate the whole trial,
the High Court will interfere with an order of acquittal. Thus, if in a non-compoundable case
instituted on a private complaint, after completion of the prosecution evidence and framing of the
charge, the Magistrate acquits the accused, on a petition of compromise filed by the parties,
without considering the merits of the case, there is a patent error or irregularity which justifies
interference.964 Where an acquittal is based on compounding of an offence and the compounding is
invalid under the law, the acquittal is liable to be set aside by the High Court in exercise of its
revisional powers. Where a person is acquitted of an offence as a result of an alleged composition of
the offence which turns out to be invalid, it is open to the High Court to interfere in revision and set
aside the acquittal.965 Where the acquittal by the Magistrate is based upon compounding of an
offence which is not compoundable under the law, the High Court may exercise its revisional
jurisdiction either suo motu or on being moved by any other person to set aside the Magistrate's
order.966 But it has also been held, that, where the State has not filed an appeal against acquittal
or appeared to support the revision, it may be reasonably presumed that it has ratified the
proceedings which ended in the acquittal and the High Court will not interfere with the order of
acquittal based on a compromise though technically the offence being non-compoundable, it could
not be compromised.967
(d) Non-recording or improper recording of evidence.-The High Court may on revision set aside an
order of acquittal and direct a retrial if there is a case of non-recording of evidence or improper
recording of inadmissible evidence.968 An error of procedure of a grave character would justify
interference with an order of acquittal, but not a mere error of improper admission of evidence which
was not essential to a result which might have been come to independently of it.969
(e) No trial on merits.-The rule against interference with an order of acquittal does not apply to
cases where there has been no trial.970 Where there was no trial of the case on the merits, it would
not be improper for the High Court to interfere.971 The High Court will interfere with a judgment of
acquittal if the Judge has considered only irrelevant matters instead of deciding the case on merits.
When the trial court has tried out a case on the merits and comes to the conclusion that accused
was guilty of criminal trespass, it is not competent for a court of appeal without going into the case
63/115
3/15/13
discussing the evidence or coming to any conclusion thereon to acquit the accused on the ground
that the matter is of a civil nature. The High Court in such a case can interfere in revision with the
order of acquittal.972 Where the judgment of the trial Magistrate is full of surmises and special
pleadings and it does not appear therefrom whether his mind worked for a conviction or for an
acquittal, the High Court should interfere on reference with the order of acquittal.973 Where the
lower court on appeal without discussing the evidence on record set aside the order of conviction
by a summary judgment, the High Court set aside the appellate order of acquittal and directed
retrial.974
(f) Acquittal under section 256.-The ordinary rule regarding the interference by the High Court with
an order of acquittal does not apply to an acquittal under section 256 and in any case, the rule will
not prevent the interference by the High Court when the acquittal is the result of an improper
clutching at jurisdiction.975 Where after the prosecution evidence a case was posted for defence
evidence to an unusual hour and when the case was called on for hearing, the complainant was
absent but the pleader was present and the Magistrate acquitted the accused, the High Court on
revision would set aside the order of acquittal holding that the Magistrate should have exercised a
better discretion if he had given a short adjournment.976 Acquittal under section 256, though one
not on merits, has the force of a complete acquittal for all purposes. The mere fact that the
acquittal is not on the merits, does not make any difference whatever for deciding whether there
should be an interference in revision against an acquittal. When the State Government does not
move in the matter, if the High Court is asked to interfere on reference, it will do so only if there be
radical and incurable irregularity or a complete disregard of the law and procedure or a manifest
injustice which has got to be cured.977
(g) Accused acquitted after charge owing to complainant's absence.-Where a charge has been
framed, an order of acquittal owing to the absence of the complainant is illegal and the High Court
will set aside the order in revision and direct the trial court to complete the trial in the manner
provided by law, i.e., to convict or acquit the accused on the merits.978
(h) Trial conducted in an atmosphere of prejudice.-Where the trial was vitiated by grave
irregularities in procedure and the irregularities and the absence of a proper charge to the jury
pointed to the conclusion that the trial was conducted in an atmosphere of prejudice, the High
Court would set aside the order of acquittal.979
(i) Judgment of acquittal not satisfactory.-Where a Magistrate acquitted the accused on a charge
of rioting with the common object of taking possession of the complainant's lands without coming to
finding on the question of possession, it was held that the judgment was not a satisfactory one, as
the Magistrate should have arrived at a proper decision on the point, and that the order of acquittal
should be set aside.980 Where there are signs in a judgment of a possible failure of justice and
where the Sessions Judge has not exercised a proper judicial mind and has come to a decision
without a proper review of the evidence, the order of acquittal must be set aside and a rehearing
ordered.981 Where the Sessions Judge commits serious illegalities and omits to consider the evidence
before the court and comes to conclusions based on inadmissible evidence, the judgment being
contrary to the facts on record, as also the law, the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside in
revision.982 (Magistrate's judgment summary and not examining complainant's case with care and
thoroughness983 no finding on important fact-No proper appreciation of material evidence.)
Where though there was a direction to issue summons, the Magistrate did not ascertain if summons
were actually issued or what happened if it were issued nor did he consider whether further steps
were called for to secure presence of witnesses, but at the end of the month, proceedings are
completed with undue haste and an order of acquittal made, it was held that the court below had
failed in its plain duty resulting in miscarriage of justice.984 The refusal of opportunity to the
petitioner to advance arguments in support of his contention in the trial court is a glaring defect in
the procedure and caused a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the order of acquittal is unsustainable
in law.985
(vii) Interference with appellate order of acquittal.-The High Court has power to interfere in
revision with an appellate judgment of acquittal, and though that power should be sparingly
exercised, it would be wrong to refuse to exercise it in cases where there has been a failure of
justice by reason of the appellate court not having brought a judicial mind to bear upon the
64/115
3/15/13
evidence.986 However, where, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Sessions
Judge does not suffer from any manifest illegality and the interests of justice do not require the High
Court to interfere with the order of acquittal of the Sessions Judge, the High Court would transgress
the narrow limits of its revisional jurisdiction under section 401(3).987
Though the High Court should not, in revision against an order of acquittal passed in appeal, direct a
rehearing of the appeal on the ground that the appellate court had taken a mistaken view of the
facts, yet it can, and should in proper cases where the appellate court has mis-directed itself on a
point of law, point out the error and direct the rehearing of the appeal.988 Appellate court wrongly
excluding certain oral evidence as inadmissible and acquitting accused.-High Court interfered in
revision by setting aside acquittal and remanding appeal for hearing.989
28. Retrial, when may be ordered
(i) General principles-No prohibition.-There is no prohibition in section 401 against the High Court
ordering a retrial, even where there has been an acquittal and there has been no appeal preferred
by Government against such an acquittal. The power to order a retrial is unrestricted and such an
order does not amount to a conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction within the
meaning of section 401(3).990
Under section 401(3), the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction,
but it can order the accused to be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to it. In
considering the question whether such a retrial should or should not be ordered, the discretion of
the court is legally unlimited. In actual fact, however, the court seldom exercises this discretion and
an order of acquittal will not as a rule be interfered with merely because the High Court disagrees
with the finding of the Magistrate. It is only when the record is incomplete or there is a flaw in
jurisdiction or where the finding is manifestly wrong or perverse that the High Court will interfere in
such cases. Where the evidence has been mis-stated, it is much the same position as if the Judge
had misdirected himself as to what the evidence was in the particular case. It will be open for the
High Court, however, to consider whether in spite of the misdirection, any finding other than one of
acquittal would have been come to in the circumstances of the particular case and the High Court
would not order a retrial unless it came clearly to the conclusion that but for the misdirection the
court might have or should have come to a different finding to what it actually did.991
In cases where the order of acquittal is passed by a court not having jurisdiction or is based on an
incomplete record of evidence, or is against any provision of law, no difficulty arises because in such
cases the order of acquittal can be set aside and a retrial ordered without any prejudice being
caused to the accused person. In cases where the order of acquittal is passed by a court of
competent jurisdiction and in which the entire evidence of the prosecution has been recorded, the
High Court should be reluctant to order a retrial in revision, because such an order means practically
a direction to the subordinate court to which the case is sent, to convict, though because of the
absence of an appeal under section 378, the High Court itself would not be competent to alter the
acquittal into conviction.992 The remedy of retrial is appropriate only when there has been no valid
or proper trial. If there is flaw in the trial, the only way of setting right a judgment of a subordinate
court which is erroneous either on facts or in law is by proceeding under section 378. A revision
should not be treated as an easy substitute for an appeal under section 378. The High Court should
not order retrial in such circumstances as would make that order in effect one of conviction.993
(ii) Retrial only in exceptional cases.-The jurisdiction of the High Court to revise an order of
acquittal and direct a retrial should be exercised only in exceptional cases and with caution. It
should only be done in cases where the alleged offence is of a serious character and the Judge
comes to the opinion that there has been a miscarriage of justice, where for instance, the lower
court, has misquoted the evidence, or where having the evidence before it, which is prima facie
reasonable and credible, the Judge of the court gives no ground for rejecting it and does not
satisfactorily review it.994 Where probative value of the F.I.R. has been ignored, individual testimony
of the eye witnesses has not been discussed, reliable testimony has been overlooked, material
evidence has been left out of consideration and overlooked, the judgment becomes impeachable and
non requitre and there is miscarriage of justice warranting interference in revision by the High
Court.995 Where the High Court found that the trial court had failed to take into consideration the
intrinsic worth of the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, had failed to use important
points including substantial and material contradictions as well as strong probabilities and that the
65/115
3/15/13
interests of public justice required that there should be a proper evaluation of the evidence against
the accused, the High Court ordered retrial of the case in order to prevent a miscarriage of
justice.996 Where in revision, the High Court has given adequate reasons for interfering with the
acquittal and ordering a retrial, no interference by the Supreme Court would be called for.997 If a
case is made out that interference is absolutely necessary under section 401 e.g., refusal of the
Magistrate to entertain further evidence which will amount to overlooking of some evidence in the
case, it is the duty of the High Court to set aside the acquittal and direct retrial of the case.998
(iii) Interests of justice.-Whatever the nature of the miscarriage of justice which impels the High
Court to order a retrial, it should not be deterred from making such an order simply because the trial
is likely to result in conviction. It may be that in a particular case nothing but conviction would meet
the ends of justice. Apart from that, if it is the clear duty of the High Court to order retrial in any
particular case, it must do so and leave the matter at that. It is none of its concern at that stage
as to what the result of the trial is likely to be. Moreover sub-section (3) of section 401 only
prohibits the High Court from itself converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it does not prohibit the court from ordering a retrial which may
possibly result in a conviction.999 Wherever it feels that the interests of justice undoubtedly require
that retrial should be ordered, it will have to be careful not to say anything in the judgment which
can be described as the dice being loaded against the accused.1000
(iv) Retrial where not proper.-Where the accused in a police case is acquitted and the State,
which were prosecuting the case do not consider that in the interests of justice there should be a
further trial of the case, the court certainly would not revive the case at the instance of an
aggrieved party in a revision petition filed by the latter.1001 Even if the order of acquittal is wrong or
perverse, it would be most irregular for the High Court to order a retrial when there is no defect or
irregularity in the trial. In revision it will not be proper to order further enquiry after setting aside a
wrong order of acquittal when on the same cause of action there has been a civil suit and a long
time has elapsed since the criminal proceedings began.1002 The High Court will not, on private
revision, set aside an order of acquittal and send the case back for retrial only on the basis of a
retracted confession which did not impress the trial court.1003 Where the case is a petty one and it
has been hanging on in various courts for more than a year it is not a fit case in which retrial should
be ordered in revision.1004
(v) Scope of retrial.-The complaint was one for an offence under sections 406, 409 and 477, I.P.C.
The Magistrate, however, framed a charge only under section 204, I.P.C., and acquitted the
accused. The order of acquittal was set aside and a retrial ordered in revision. It was held, that the
Magistrate could re-try the accused only for an offence punishable under section 204, I.P.C.1005
29. No revision where appeal lies
(i) General-High Court will not interfere when other remedies are open.-Except in very special
cases, the revisional powers of the court should not be exercised, until all the anterior remedies
provided by law have been exhausted.1006 Where a remedy can be easily obtained in a civil court
the High Court will not interfere.1007 So also where the point at issue between the parties is one
which can more appropriately be decided by a civil court.1008 When the law provides a direct
remedy, e.g., where the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order for the taking of security to keep
the peace, the High Court would decline to interfere when no application had been made to the
competent court.1009 Since an appeal lies against an order of confiscation under section 6-A,
Essential Commodities Act, a revision is not maintainable to the High Court against such order.1010
In an application by an accused person for revision of an order of a sub-vakil Magistrate refusing to
allow a private vakil to appear on his behalf, it appeared that the trial in which the private vakil's
assistance was required had ended in the conviction of the accused. It was held, that the case was
not one for interference in revision, because the accused could in an appeal from the conviction,
make it a ground of appeal that he was improperly deprived of legal assistance at the trial.1011
Where the reference is at the instance of the court, not being moved by any party competent to
appeal, the application of the bar under sub-section (4) of section 401 does not arise.1012
(ii) Sub-section (4) applies only where appeal provided under Code.-Sub-section (4) enacts
that, when under the Code, an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of
revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. Under section
66/115
3/15/13
401(4), where a remedy by way of an appeal from acquittal is provided for, and no such appeal is
brought, the party who could have appealed is debarred from prosecuting a remedy by way of
revision.1013 But an order made by a Magistrate under section 81 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911,
can be set aside in revision by the High Court, inasmuch as no appeal lies against such order under
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, although under section 84 of the Act an appeal lay
against the assessment or levy of any tax to the Deputy Commissioner or such officer as might be
empowered by the local Government.1014 To the wide powers of High Court in revision, there is one
restriction as prescribed under section 401(4) vide which, if the accused does not file an appeal,
where he has a right of appeal, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at his
instance. This statutory bar cannot be circumvented by the High Court saying that it can treat
revisional application as an information or knowledge otherwise coming to the notice of the High
Court for exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 401(1). Filing an appeal which is barred
by time is as good as not filing an appeal and section 401(4) will apply to such a case and revision is
barred.1015 Section 378(6) states that if in any case the application under sub-section (4) for grant
of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of
acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1). This shows that an appeal shall lie where such leave is
granted and it would, therefore, clearly come under section 401(4).1016
(a) Complaint case.-Where the Magistrate at first has taken cognizance of the case on private
complaint, subsequent institution of charge-sheet by the police cannot make the initial proceedings
started on a private complaint as those started on the subsequent police report. As appeal lies
under section 378, no revision lies under section 439(4).1017 It cannot be argued that right of
appeal under section 378(1) is no right at all, an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case does
lie to the High Court alone and the provisions of section 401(4) will be attracted in case the
complainant does not choose to move the High Court in appeal. Where an appeal has been provided
against an order of acquittal and the complainant has made no attempt to invoke the provisions of
section 378(4), by the reason of section 401(4), proceedings by way of revision cannot be
entertained at the instance of the complainant who could have appealed.1018
(b) Instances where appeal provided.-An appeal is provided from any order under sections 3 and 4
of Probation of Offenders Act, as such revision against such orders is incompetent.1019 The
provisions under sub-section (4) of section 84 provide only an alternative remedy against order
under section 88(1) and do not lay down any bar to the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the
High Court.1020 Where there is a statutory right of appeal in respect of orders passed in proceedings
under section 145 in the trial areas in Nikir Mills, held, a revision under section 401 is not
competent.1021
An order under section 452(1) and (2) is appealable under section 454, hence criminal revision is not
maintainable in the High Court.1022
(iii) Scope of sub-section (4).-Under section 401, clause (4), the High Courts are precluded from
exercising powers of revision at the instance of an accused who had a right of appeal and did not
exercise it.1023 If a person aggrieved by an order appealable under section 458, infra, does not
appeal, it will be improper to entertain a revision at his instance.1024 In respect of an offence under
section 205, I.P.C. in a pending proceeding, the remedy is by way of appeal by the person
aggrieved. No revision lies. Moreover, a mere informant has no locus standi to file a revision.1025
Where the respondent has a right of appeal against the acquittal order, and has not exercised that
right, he cannot ask the High Court to take up the matter in revision when the matter comes for
hearing upon revision petition filed by the accused.
(a) Complaint case.-A person against whom a complaint has been made under section 340, has a
right of appeal to a court superior to that which made the complaint and where such appeal is not
made, no proceedings by way of revision can be entertained by the High Court at the instance of
that person.1026
(b) Forfeiture of bond.-Where no appeal against the order of forfeiture of bond for appearance
under section 446, is preferred, a revision application against the order is not maintainable.1027
(c) Compensation.-Compensation under section 250-Aggregate amount exceeding Rs. 50-Appeal not
filed-Revision by complainant not maintainable.1028
67/115
3/15/13
(d) Suo motu exercise of power not precluded.-Where three accused are convicted, in appeal by
two of them conviction of all is found to be illegal, the appellate court sets aside sentence of two of
the appealing accused but no order is passed for non-appealing accused and the non-appealing
accused brings the undisputed illegality to the notice of the High Court, even if the judgment and
conviction by the trial court are appealable and the accused does not prefer an appeal, the
prohibition contained in section 401(4) does not prevent the High Court in taking the matter suo
motu for exercising its revisional powers.1029
(e) Revision where not barred.-When a complaint is filed by a public servant and the proceedings
are dropped by the court and on retirement of that public servant, a revision against order of
dropping the proceedings is filed by his successor, provisions of section 401(4) do not bar such
revision.1030
(iv) No revision "at the instance of the party who could have appealed".-According to section
401(4), a party which could have appealed and has failed to do so cannot invoke the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court.1031 Section 378(4) confers a right of appeal on the complainant, as
such where the complainant does not take the requisite steps for filing appeal a revision at his
instance is incompetent in view of sub-section (4) of section 401.1032
(a) Exception-Suo motu revision.-Sub-section (4) precludes the High Court from interfering in
revision only where the matter is brought before it by the party who could have appealed. It does
not take way the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its power of revision when the matter is
brought before it otherwise than by the party who could have appealed.1033 The prohibition of
revision is limited only to those cases in which the High Court is asked to interfere "at the instance
of the party who could have appealed but has not done so". It leaves untouched the powers of the
High Court to exercise its revisional powers in all cases where the records have been called for by
itself or which have been reported to it for orders under section 395 or which otherwise come to its
knowledge.1034 Sub-section (4) of section 401 will operate as a bar to entertainment of a revision
where an appeal lies at the instance of the petitioner.1035 The provision of section 401(4) is a bar
to a party, who does not appeal, when appeal lies but applies in revision. Such a legal bar does not
stand in the way of the High Court's exercise of power of revision suo motu.1036
(b) Appeal by co-accused or others.-The High Court is not precluded by sub-section (4) from
interfering with the conviction of the accused who has not appealed where the matter comes before
it on the appeal preferred by his co-accused, as his case does not come before it at his
instance.1037 The High Court has jurisdiction to set aside the conviction of certain persons even
though they were not before it, while hearing a rule issued to consider the propriety of the
conviction of certain others who were convicted along with them.1038 In 77 IC 723 : AIR 1929 Lah
585, the High Court hearing a revision petition preferred by certain accused persons scrutinised the
evidence to find out whether the convictions of the co-accused who were non co-operators and
who did not appeal to the lower appellate court were justified.
(c) Prevention of injustice.-Though, ordinarily, no revision would lie where the accused had an
opportunity of appealing and has not exercised it, where the result of not allowing revision would be
to sustain a long sentence of imprisonment for what the High Court views to be a small offence
deserving much lighter punishment, the High Court would under its general powers of revision hear
the case and if necessary interfere.1039
(d) Interests of accused-Illegal convictions not to be upheld.-The High Court is not debarred from
exercising revisional jurisdiction in a fit case even if the accused does not wish the High Court to
interfere. Where the matter was unofficially brought to the notice of the court by an application
made by the father of the accused the Sind Court issued a notice under this section and considered
whether the Magistrate committed any error of law in convicting the accused, observing that the
fact that the relative withdrew from the application and the fact that the accused had written to
them to stay their hands did not operate to debar them from the exercise of their jurisdiction.1040
The mere fact that an accused in the Magistrate's court refused to take part in the proceedings
before him or stated that he had nothing to say in defence should not prevent a revision from his
conviction from being heard. There is an obligation on the High Court to superintend and supervise
the subordinate criminal courts and to see that orders of conviction passed by such courts are not
illegal and contrary to law. If the illegality of a conviction is brought to the notice of the High Court,
there should not be a refusal on its part to interfere merely because the accused concerned is quite
68/115
3/15/13
content with the order and does not wish to challenge it or because he had no objection to his
being prosecuted and convicted. However willing an accused may be to submit to the sentence and
however reluctant he may be to move the High Court, it will have no hesitation in setting aside his
conviction if it was satisfied that the conviction was illegal. The High Court's acting in such a way
would not in any sense be derogatory to the dignity of the High Court. It would be upholding its
dignity and maintaining the high traditions of the High Court, if in spite of the accused's
refractoriness, it were to interfere. Even where an accused has been guilty of a contempt of court,
the High Court may punish him separately for such contempt but would not on that account uphold
an illegal conviction of his. The acts of the accused would create no serious obstacles in the way of
the High Court's interference.1041 However, where the convicted persons are men of position holding
university degrees and practising as lawyers and they do not appeal from the judgment convicting
them, the High Court will not entertain an application for reduction of sentence at the instance of a
third party even though the sentences are very heavy.1042
(e) Revision by third party not barred.-Where two members of the Bar Association were convicted
under section 117, I.P.C. read with section 9, Salt Act, by the first class Magistrate and the Bar
Association authorised the President to file a revision application to the High Court invoking its
powers under section 401 on the ground that the conviction was illegal, the proceedings by way of
revision before the High Court were not initiated by a party who could have appealed but had not
appealed and, therefore, sub-section (4) was inapplicable.1043
(v) Application by third party at the instigation of accused, whether maintainable.-If an
application in revision by an accused is barred, an application in revision by everyone else made at
his instigation would be equally barred. The words "at the instance of the party who could have
appealed" in sub-section (4), section 401 do not imply that a third party can make such an
application at the instigation of such an accused.1044
(vi) High Court will not interfere suo motu when moved by non-appealing applicant.-No
doubt the High Court can interfere on its own motion in cases where a person affected is debarred
from moving it under sub-section (4). But in a case where the court has not acted of its own
motion, in calling for the proceedings under section 397, but at the instance of the applicant, it
would be a pure quibble to say that in spite of the provisions of sub-section (4), the court could do,
what the applicant wants, of its own motion. This would be a mere evasion of the statute which the
court cannot permit.1045
It would be futile to say that the court has discretion to treat a revision application that does not
lie as information and act suo motu. Even if it can be treated as information, this course should be
reserved for extraordinary cases and ordinarily the High court should refuse to treat it as
information.1046
In case of apparent error of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence, resulting in failure of justice,
court can take suo motu action.1047
(vii) Order of acquittal in case instituted upon complaint-Complainant not filing appealRevision by him, if competent.-See Note under section 375, supra.
(viii) Order on appeal setting aside conviction for want of proper cognizance of offenceRevision by Government-If lies.-Where an appellate court sets aside a conviction and sentence
on the ground that the lower court had not taken cognizance of the offence in a report of a public
servant as required by rule 130 of the Defence of India Rules, and deliberately refrains from
recording an order of acquittal the order of the appellate court is either an order of discharge such
as is contemplated by section 386(b) or an order of a kind not contemplated by the Code at all. It is
certainly not an order of acquittal and a revision at the instance of the Government is not,
therefore, barred by the provisions of section 401(4).1048
30. Enhancement of sentence
(i) High Court may enhance sentence.-The section authorises the High Court to enhance the
sentence so as to alter its nature.1049 Under section 401 power to enhance the sentence under
section 386 can be exercised in a revision.1050
(ii) High Court's powers to enhance sentence passed by Sessions Judges.-There is no reason
to extend the scope of this section to include the sentence passed by Sessions Judges with the
69/115
3/15/13
result that the High Court can enhance the sentences irrespective of the powers of the Sessions
Judges to pass such sentences.1051
(iii) Power to enhance sentence passed by Assistant Sessions Judge.-High Court is competent
to inflict any sentence, which in the circumstances of the case might appear to be proper,
irrespective of the limits of the powers exercisable by the court of trial.1052
(iv) Powers of High Court-Government not moving in the matter.-In a criminal trial, the court
in revision is always reluctant to enhance sentences suo motu.1053 Ordinarily, it is for the
Government to move the High Court to enhance sentence but if the attention of the Government is
not drawn to a particular matter which requires attention, that is no reason why the High Court
should do its duty and exercise powers conferred on it by law even in case of conviction by a Judge
of the same court.1054 It is true that section 377 has expressly given a right to the State to appeal
against inadequacy of sentence. That, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, however does not
exclude revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to act suo motu for enhancement of sentence in
appropriate cases.1055 Where State has filed no appeal against inadequacy of sentence, the High
Court has power to enhance sentence, in an appropriate case, by exercising suo motu power of
revision.1056
(v) No right of Government to influence court.-The question of punishment is peculiarly a matter
for the court. The Government has no right in revision to seek to influence the court unless invited
by the court to do so.1057
(vi) Power to enhance sentence already served out.-It is within the power of the High Court to
enhance the sentence on an accused person although he may have served out his original sentence
and been discharged from jail custody provided the case calls for such an enhancement.1058
However, the High Court is slow to interfere where interference would involve the imprisonment of
persons already discharged from jail though this circumstance is no insuperable obstacle.1059 The
mere circumstance that the accused has already been discharged from jail cannot be allowed to
operate as an insuperable obstacle to the enhancement of his sentence. The court would interfere if
the sentence is manifestly inadequate.1060
(vii) Application for enhancement of sentence by private complainant, if competent.-A
District Magistrate, or a Sessions Judge, or the Government pleader may draw the attention of the
High Court to a sentence with a view to its being enhanced or the High Court may of its own motion
send for the record and take action with a like object. As a matter of practice, an application by a
private complainant for enhancement of sentence would not be entertained. If he considers a
sentence unduly lenient, he should draw the attention of the Government to the fact.1061 It is the
right of the Government, not of individuals, to ask courts to enhance sentences passed upon
criminal offenders.1062 It was the practice of the Oudh chief court not to entertain applications for
enhancement of sentence on behalf of private parties.1063 It was stated that though it is not the
policy of the Lahore High Court to enhance sentence in a criminal case on a petition by a party, yet
it was not an invariable rule.1064 On a complainant's application for enhancement of sentence, the
Nagpur High Court held that enhancement of sentence was a very serious proceeding and where
there was a proposal to that effect, it must be supported by the Government pleader under
instructions which would enable him to put before the High Court cogent reasons why there should
be an enhancement of sentence.1065 But it has also been held that although applications of this
nature ought not to be encouraged at the instance of a private prosecutor, there is no absolute
rule, and, in a case where there is manifestly a ground for interference beyond all reasonable doubt,
it matters not whether the case comes before the court of its own motion or at the instance of a
private prosecutor or through any other channel whatever and the court will interfere.1066 The
court will be loath to act on the motion of a private complainant but in extreme cases indubitably it
may exercise the power to enhance sentence of an accused where it is inadequate.1067 Ordinarily,
the High Court should be loath to take action in the matter of enhancement of punishment when the
district authorities consider the sentence as sufficient. But there are occasions when the High Court
has every right to enforce its own opinion in preference to that of the district authorities.1068
Where the complainant wishes to apply for enhancement of sentence passed on the accused by the
Sessions Judge, it is not intended by the Code that his only remedy is to apply to a District
Magistrate to move the State Government to apply for an enhancement, because the local
70/115
3/15/13
Government will only apply for an enhancement if the enhancement is required in the public interest.
The High Court does not regard the question of enhancement only from the point of view of public
interest but from the circumstances of the particular case before it. A private complainant can,
therefore, apply in revision to the High Court for enhancement of a sentence.1069 On principle, there
is no reason why a complainant should be held to have no right to apply in revision for enhancement
of sentence and also of being heard in support of it. Only, the right of the complainant is
subordinate to the rights of the Government.1070
(viii) High Court, if bound to go into facts when rule for enhancement of sentence issued at
instance of private complainant.-Where a rule for enhancement of sentence is issued at the
instance of a private complainant, it is the duty of the High Court to go into the facts and ascertain
for itself whether in the circumstances of the case, the sentence should be enhanced even if the
Government does not move in the matter.1071 But Buckland, J., did not take the same view, for the
reason that a rule is issued ex parte and matters have to be taken into consideration upon the
hearing of the rule which are not before the court at the time when it is issued, for instance,
contentions urged on behalf of the accused, the attitude of the Government and other possible
contingencies.1072
(ix) Government should seek revisional interference in case of violence to general principle.Government should refrain from appealing to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court for
enhancement of sentence unless there be that violence has been done to some general principle
which requires immediate and authoritative interference.1073
(x) High Court may not enhance sentence, if prosecuting authorities indifferent about
deterrent sentence in lower court.-It is very undesirable to trust exclusively the powers of the
High Court of correcting sentences of the lower courts where the sentences ought to be deterrent.
In a case of that kind, where the prosecution authorities think that a sentence ought to be
deterrent, they ought to put before the trying court those circumstances on which they rely and
they ought to ask the trying court to impose a sentence which will serve the purpose that they
think should be served.1074 In the absence of any similar steps having been taken by the
complainant or by the State in the case either before the trying Magistrate or before the Sessions
Judge, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the sentence.1075 It is very difficult
for the State successfully to press the enhancement when its representative in the sessions court
appears to have allowed the court to pass the sentence, it did without any serious attempt to
modify it.1076 Where the State Government has not challenged the quantum of sentence of the
accused at any stage and the accused has not cared to appear before the High Court, sentence
would not be enhanced on revision because it would require notice to the accused entailing further
delay.1077
(xi) Principles guiding enhancement of sentence.-The principles upon which the High Court acts
as a court of revision in relation to enhancement of sentences are that it should not interfere with
the discretion of the trial court, if the sentence passed involves substantial punishment and should
interfere if the sentence is manifestly inadequate.1078 Where a sentence passed is substantial, even
though inadequate, it will not be enhanced in revision.1079
Section 401 confers upon superior criminal court a supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct
miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper
precautions or apparent harshness of treatment resulting in some injury to the maintenance of law
and order, or some undeserved hardship to individuals. In revision, power of enhancement of
sentence can be exercised where sentence is not according to law. In revision for enhancement of
sentence, both the conviction and sentence are open to revision.1080 Revisional powers of High
Court include enhancement of sentence, but not conversion of acquittal into conviction. Also High
Court cannot alter conviction into one for graver offence, if not charged, particularly if the court
that tried the accused is not competent to try the graver offence.1081
(a) Discretion of trial court.-Sentence is in the discretion of the trial court and unless it is grossly
inadequate, the High Court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Magistrate.1082
The question of sentence is a matter of discretion primarily resting with the trial court and it is wellsettled that when that discretion has been properly exercised, an appellate court should not
interfere unless there are very strong reasons and in a case where the sentence cannot be said to
71/115
3/15/13
be so grossly inadequate as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, the High Court will not
interfere.1083 The mere ground that the High Court would itself have passed a heavier sentence or
that it would have maintained a heavier sentence is not enough to enhance the sentence.1084 The
question of sentence is always within the discretion of the court and ordinarily the sentence is
determined only with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case unless indeed there is a
liability to enhanced punishment by reason of any specific provision of law such as section 75, I.P.C.
Where a Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence of theft and in imposing the sentence
declined to take into consideration the previous convictions of the accused pronounced out of
British India, it was held that in view of the fact that those convictions could not be made the basis
of any charge under section 75, I.P.C., the evidence of these convictions could be admissible only
as evidence of bad character and as there was no provision compelling a Magistrate to consider the
antecedents of the accused before determining the sentence to be imposed upon him it could not
be said that the Magistrate acted illegally in the exercise of his discretion in declining to consider
those previous convictions and that, therefore, the High Court would not interfere in revision and
enhance the sentence passed by the Magistrate.1085 But the High Court will interfere where the
sentence awarded by the trial court is so grossly inadequate as to amount to miscarriage of
justice.1086
(b) Sentence below minimum prescribed.-If an inferior court has imposed a sentence below the
minimum prescribed by the law, it is the duty of the High Court in revision to correct the error.1087
When an offence falls within the ambit of clause (i), sub-section (1)(a) of section 16 of Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, the trial court should award the minimum sentence viz., imprisonment for
six months with fine not less than one thousand rupees, and if the trial court committed a manifest
error of law by imposing sentence of imprisonment only, sentence would be enhanced to include a
fine of one thousand rupees, and in default, to suffer an imprisonment for a further period of six
months.1088 Though the High Court in revision is bound to correct the error of inferior court in
regard to imposition of minimum sentence, it will not interfere to enhance the sentence as when no
useful purpose will be served as the chances of apprehending the accused after lapse of
considerable time are remote and will render order enhancing sentence an unworkable
proposition.1089
(c) Sentence on plea of guilty.-Where on plea bargaining, the accused pleads guilty and is
convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate, enhancement of the sentence acting on plea of guilty
in revision will not be reasonable, fair and just. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the revisional
court in such a case can set aside the conviction and sentence, and remand the case to the trial
court if the revisional court considers the sentence to be disproportionately low.1090
(d) Sentence where to be enhanced or not.-Facts proved clearly establishing case under section
302, I.P.C., but lower court convicting accused under section 304, I.P.C.-State not filing appealGood ground in revision for enhancement of sentence awarded under section 304, I.P.C.1091 Where
a public servant is proved to have taken bribes the High Court enhanced the sentence of simple
imprisonment and fine by the Sessions Judge on the application of the Government. The High Court
stated. "The higher the official position of the accused the more serious is the breach and the
heavier the sentence".1092 Where the accused was convicted in the alternative under section 193,
I.P.C. ; for making contradictory statements under section 164, Cr.P.C., it was held that the High
Court should not enhance the sentence in the absence of proof as to which statement was
false.1093 On a conviction under section 247, I.P.C., a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment
was passed. On appeal the Sessions Judge maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence to
a term of six months. On application to the High Court for enhancement of sentence, it was held
that the reduction of sentence being reasonable and the sentence not being grossly inadequate,
the High Court would not enhance the sentence.1094
The High Court would send a person who had been fined to jail, only if in its opinion, the
circumstances of the case were such as to require substantial punishment. Where in a case under
section 324, I.P.C., the complainant was the aggressor and five months had elapsed since the
conviction, the High Court would refuse to enhance the sentence of fine into one of
imprisonment.1095 Where a Magistrate convicted the accused under section 325, I.P.C., but passed
a sentence of fine only, it was held that the sentence should have been one of imprisonment.
However, that notwithstanding that the sentence was irregular, the High Court need not interfere in
revision, the revisional powers being intended for the redress of genuine grievances and not of mere
72/115
3/15/13
formal defects.1096
(xii) Enhancement of sentence of imprisonment for life.-The High Court has full authority to
enhance any sentence if it considers that the sentence passed in the lower court is improper.
Whether it will interfere or not will depend on the facts of each case. Where in a case of murder,
the lower court passes a sentence of imprisonment for life, the High Court has power to set aside
the sentence and impose a sentence of death.1097 Where an application is made to the High Court
for enhancement of a sentence of imprisonment on a conviction for murder, the proper test to be
applied is whether the only sentence which could be passed on the evidence is a sentence of
death. There are many cases where Sessions Judges are too lenient in the exercise of the discretion
vested in them by law, but the High Court will not interfere except when it finds that the sentence
of death is the only possible sentence that could be inflicted.1098 Where the Sessions Judge has, in
imposing the lesser penalty, exercised the discretion which indisputably is vested in him, the High
Court would not be justified in interfering with the exercise of that discretion unless it is found that
the exercise of discretion is perverse or in fact no discretion whatever has been exercised.1099 The
fact that the guilt of the person charged with murder is proved only by circumstantial evidence,
though strong, is no ground for imposing the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. In such a case
where the lower court manifestly fails in its duty to impose the only possible sentence (death), the
High Court can enhance the sentence to one of death.1100 There is no justification for the view
that, because the State has not moved for enhancement, the High Court should as a rule of caution
desist from imposing the death penalty.1101
(a) Delay in hearing no ground for non-enhancement.-Where the Sessions Judge did not impose the
extreme penalty which he should have done as the crime was most atrocious in nature, the delay
alone in hearing the application for enhancement of sentence is not a sufficient reason for not
imposing the death penalty.1102 There is no settled rule that whenever a person is under a sentence
of death for a year or two the sentence of death should not be confirmed or the sentence of
imprisonment for life should not be enhanced to death.1103
(b) Lenient sentence in contravention of rulings.-Where a Sessions Judge passes a more lenient
sentence in contravention of the rulings of law which are laid down from time to time for the
guidance of those dealing with criminal cases, the High Court will interfere and will enhance the
sentence. There are only two sentences for an offence of murder, (1) death and (2) imprisonment
for life. If it appears to the High Court that the discretion in awarding sentence in a murder case has
been exercised perversely or that the discretion has not at all been exercised, then the High Court
has right in revision to interfere in the matter.1104
(c) Sentence where not enhanced.-It does not, however, necessarily follow that the High Court
must enhance the sentence in revision. It is recognised that a person who has even wrongly got the
benefit of a lenient sentence at his trial, may sometimes be allowed to benefit by his good fortune,
provided the sentence passed is one which is legal. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for
life for the offence of murder though in fact death sentence ought to have been passed on him. It
was, however, found that there was no absence of premeditation on the part of the accused to
commit the offence and three months had elapsed from the date of such sentence during which the
accused believed that his life would be spared. It was held that the sentence of imprisonment for
life passed on the accused should not be enhanced under the circumstances.1105
(xiii) Enhancement of non-appealable sentence.-The High Court has power under section 401,
to enhance the sentence in cases where the sentence given is one which is not appealable to the
High Court. But the High Court will not enhance the sentence in the absence of special
circumstances especially when the offences charged are very petty.1106
(xiv) High Court cannot enhance sentence which is not a legal one.-The power of enhancement
of sentence can only be exercised where the sentence passed is a legal one. A sentence of
imprisonment for the period already passed by the accused in the lock-up is not a legal sentence
and the High Court will not accept the recommendation for enhancement of the sentence in such a
case.1107
(xv) High Court can set aside order under section 360 and substitute sentence therefor.Section 360(5) empowers the High Court in the exercise of its power of revision to set aside an
order under section 360 and substitute a sentence of imprisonment.1108 The decision to the
73/115
3/15/13
contrary in 37 All 31, is not good law now, as the law has since been amended by the insertion of
sub-section (5) to section 360.1109
(xvi) High Court hearing an appeal may enhance sentence under this section-Appeal from
conviction pending before Sessions Judge.-The High Court, not aware of filing of appeal, calling
for record of case under section 397 from Magistrate and issuing show cause notice to appellant
(accused) against enhancement of sentence-Later, High Court ordering transfer of appeal to itself
for hearing-Order by High Court dismissing appeal and enhancing sentence, not illegal.1110
(xvii) Proper time for issuing notice of enhancement of sentence by High Court.-See Note
under section 386, supra.
(xviii) Order enhancing sentence without giving accused opportunity to appear-Validity.Where the High Court purports to set aside the sentence under one count but enhances the same
under another, it is its duty to comply with the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 401.1111
The accused is entitled even in a revisional application by a party interested for enhancement of
sentence to show cause not only against enhancement of sentence but also against his
conviction.1112 Under sub-section (2), no order can be made under this section to the prejudice of
the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his
own defence. In the case of proceedings called for solely with a view to enhancing the sentence,
notice to that effect should be given to the accused.1113 Under section 401, no order can be made
against the accused without giving him an opportunity of being heard, in the court passing the order
and the fact that a hearing was given before making the reference is not a sufficient compliance
with section 401.1114 An order to the prejudice of an accused without affording him an opportunity
of being heard, as for instance, where by mistake a case was posted on a day anterior to that fixed
in the notice to the accused and the sentence was enhanced in his absence, is null and void ab
initio, as being one passed without jurisdiction. The proper course in such a case is to proceed with
the matter afresh after proper notice to the accused.1115 Where the High Court set aside an order
under section 360 and awarded imprisonment to the accused under the impression that the accused
was served with a notice of hearing but it subsequently turned out that no such notice was issued,
the High Court would issue a notice and re-hear the case.1116 But it has also been held that there is
nothing in section 401, which requires that when accused persons are already before the court by
their advocate or pleader, it is nevertheless still incumbent upon the court to issue a notice to them
to bring them before the court a second time as it were still less to invoke the machinery of the
court in the way of issuing a rule calling upon them to show cause. Of course, if the advocate or
pleader were to state that he wished to consult clients or to take further instructions, it would only
be right and proper that he should have an opportunity of so doing and an adjournment might have
to be granted for that purpose.1117 Where the High Court in revision considers it necessary to
enhance the sentence, it is not necessary that a notice should be served on the accused. The law
does not require it, when the accused are already before the court represented by counsel who is in
possession of all the papers. The High Court can ask him to show cause then and there, and after a
short adjournment and after hearing him can enhance the sentence.1118 In a case in which a
sentence of imprisonment for life has been imposed by the lower court on the main charge and
inadequate sentence has been imposed as a matter of form on what seems to have been treated as
a minor charge and the appellate court after hearing the appeal sets aside the sentence of
imprisonment for life, it is not necessary in those circumstances for the appellate court to issue a
fresh notice to the accused to show cause against the enhancement of the sentence passed on the
minor charge and it can, without adjourning the appeal, call upon his counsel to show cause at
once.1119
31. Powers of Division Bench and single Judge of High Court to issue rule in revision.-The
jurisdiction of the High Court and its powers are provided for by article 225 of the Constitution. The
perusal of that Article necessitates the consideration of the provisions contained in section 223 of
the Government of India Act, 1935 and section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915. In
pursuance of the power vested in the High Court by these provisions, rule 1 of Chapter V of the
rules of the Allahabad High Court has been made. On a consideration of the constitutional position
and rule 1, Chapter V of the rules, it is only the Chief Justice who has the right and power to decide
which Judge is to sit alone and what cases such Judge can decide ; further, it is again for the Chief
Justice to determine which Judges shall constitute Division Benches. Any order which a Bench or a
single Judge may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them or him by the Chief
74/115
3/15/13
Justice or in accordance with his directions is an order without jurisdiction. Where in a criminal case
in which the Bench of the High Court purported to make an order directing a notice to issue under
section 401 to an accused to show cause why his sentences should not be enhanced even though
it was not a case that had been directed by the Chief Justice to be placed before that Bench for
order, it was held that the Bench had no jurisdiction to issue notice to the accused to show cause
for the enhancement of the sentence passed against him.1120
Revision against acquittal of offences punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment is to be
heard by a single Judge and not by a Division Bench, except where a single Judge refers it to a
Division Bench.
While it is open to a de facto complainant to file a revision against a judgment of acquittal, it is not
open to him to file an appeal against acquittal.1121
(i) Hearing of rule.-A rule which is issued by the High Court in revision should be read with the
judgments which were before the court at the time it was granted, and should be read reasonably in
favour of the accused.1122
(a) Discretion of the court hearing.-Although rules to show cause are frequently granted on
particular grounds, the form of any rule granted would ordinarily be such as to leave the action
which the court should take in case the conviction is set aside, to the discretion of the court which
hears the rule. Where a rule was granted, "to show cause why the conviction should not be set
aside and the case sent back for retrial" it was held that the terms of the rule did not prevent the
Bench hearing it from discharging the accused.1123 Where the rule issued by a High Court is to show
cause why the appeal should not be re-heard by the District Judge, it is within the competence of
the High Court to make any order as it may think fit, e.g., it may order that the order of the District
Judge be set aside.1124 The High Court has discretion at the hearing of a rule to consider and
decide matters in respect of which a rule has been prayed for but not granted.1125 But applicants in
revision should as a rule, be confined to the grounds upon which the rule nisi is granted.1126
(b) No going beyond rule by accused.-There may be no bar to the High Court exercising its
revisional powers at any stage of the proceedings, but it is not desirable that once the court has
already applied its mind and refused to exercise those powers or to exercise them to limited extent,
the court should reconsider the whole matter over again. Where a revision was admitted for the
limited purpose of examining the order relating to forfeiture of article alone, it would not be open to
the accused to raise the points in regard to the merits of the case regarding the conviction for the
offence.1127 Where in showing cause against a rule obtained by a petitioner, an objection as to
misjoinder, which formed no portion of the rule was taken by the Government for the first time, the
High Court would decline to give effect to it.1128
(c) No restriction on powers of Judge hearing.-Where a revision is admitted by the Application
Judge only on the ground of sentence, the Judge hearing the revision is not bound by it and has
unrestricted right to hear the same on merits and not restrict the hearing exclusively to the
question of sentence only. Though an order admitting a revision only on the question of sentence
should as a rule be respected, it is only in exceptional cases where compelling reasons are placed
before the High Court that the power to examine the correctness or legality of the conviction should
be utilised.1129
(ii) Issue of rule on District Magistrate-Sufficiency.-Where an application is filed for revision of
an order passed by a Magistrate rejecting an application of the complainant under section 302, to
be allowed to conduct the prosecution of a murder case instituted by her through her own lawyers,
and directing the court inspector to conduct the prosecution, the application should not, no doubt,
be decided without giving the State an opportunity to be heard. But in order to give the State such
an opportunity, it is not necessary that the State should be formally impleaded as a party to the
proceeding and that notice of rule should be served upon the Legal Remembrancer of the State. It is
enough if the court directs issue of the rule on the District Magistrate. It is in fact an invariable
practice of the Calcutta High Court to issue a rule on all applications for revision under section 401
on the District Magistrate of the district, in addition to the private party, whether complainant or
accused named as opposite party in the application. This is done for the very good reason that the
District Magistrate represents the State in all such matters. The rule is not issued on the District
Magistrate only as a post office between the High Court and the trying court. When a rule is issued
on the District Magistrate, he does inform the trying court of the same and very often forwards to
75/115
3/15/13
the High Court any observations and explanations that may be submitted by the trial court. But that
is only a part of his duty. It is equally his duty to decide whether the State should be represented in
the hearing of the matter before the High Court and if he decides that it should be done, to take
necessary steps for the same.1130
(iii) Magistrate how to show cause against a rule issued.-A Magistrate who is called upon by
the High Court to show cause against a rule issued by the High Court must ask the Legal
Remembrancer to appear for him and must not address the Registrar by letter.1131
(iv) What should an explanation to a rule contain.-Rules (notices) are issued by the High Court
to Magistrates below for the purpose of ascertaining what they have to say regarding the
allegations made in the petitions ; and it is the duty of the Magistrate below to peruse the petitions
and either give the necessary explanation regarding the points raised or to state at least that they
have nothing to add to what is already contained in their judgments under revision. There must be
something to show that the Magistrates applied their minds to the grounds on which the rules were
issued.1132 Though it is open to a Magistrate called upon to show cause, to submit his remarks in
answer to the grounds urged by the petitioner who obtains a rule, it is not open to him to submit
observations with a view to supplementing or adding to his judgment.1133 Where a judgment did not
contain the findings necessary for a conviction, but a Magistrate explained his judgment in a letter
or explanation which he sent, the High Court held that the Magistrate could not supplement his
judgment by the letter of explanation.1134
32. Expunging of remarks from judgment-Procedure.-If the expunction of defamatory passages
touches the fabric of the judgment itself or is calculated to affect the conclusions of the Magistrate
or Judge, the proper procedure is to issue notice to the parties and to deal with the case as a
whole in revision, expunging the remarks if it is thought proper, either in the exercise of the High
Court's revisional powers under section 401, read with section 386(e) or under section 482. It is not
however, necessary to adopt such a course and to go into the merits if the remarks complained of
are not inseparable from the judgment as a whole and do not form an integral part of it.1135
33. Adjournment.-Applicants in revision to the High Court must be prepared with their cases and
with the documents in support. The court will not send for the record unless there is sufficient
material to justify that course, and will not stand a case over merely to enable a party to do what
he should have done before presenting the application.1136
34. Reference to Division Bench-Power of single Judge.-There is no provision in the Code or in
the rules of the Patna High Court under which a reference can be made by a single Judge to a
Division Bench for the expression of an opinion on a point of law only. When a criminal revision case
is referred to a Division Bench, the whole case must be deemed to have been so referred.1137
35. Procedure where Judges composing court of revision are equally divided in opinion.Where the Judges hearing a criminal revision case are equally divided in opinion, section 401 read
with section 392, requires the case to be decided by a third Judge and precludes any further appeal
under the Letters Patent or any reference to a Full Bench under the rules of the court.1138
36. Revision petition dismissed for default, if can be reheard.-A criminal revision petition
dismissed for default without any decision on the merits can be re-heard.1139 The High Court has no
power to review an order made in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.1140 In criminal revision,
the High Court acts at its own discretion, and its order dismissing the revision petition for default is
with jurisdiction. No petitioner has a right to be heard, and the High Court is not compelled to
interfere with a judgment brought to its notice unless it so thinks fit.1141 The High Court is not
competent to restore to its original number the criminal revision petition dismissed for default. In
cases of criminal revision no distinction can be made between an order passed without hearing the
petitioner and one in which he is heard. The revisional power of the High Court is exercised at its
own discretion and no petitioner has a right to be heard.1142 Once a criminal revision petition is
dismissed on the merits or for default, the rules of justice, equity and good conscience require that
no other petition on the same matter should lie.1143 There is no provision in Cr.P.C. analogous to
order IX, rule 9 of the C.P. Code or its equivalent in order XLI, rule 19, C.P. Code and hence a
criminal revision petition dismissed for default of appearance cannot be restored to file.1144 Where a
criminal revision petition presented to the High Court is dismissed for non-payment of printing
charges, it is a final disposal and it is not open to the party to file a fresh petition in the same
76/115
3/15/13
matter, and there can be no review of the order of dismissal.1145 But in 46 Mad 382, Devadoss, J.,
doubted the correctness of the ruling in 23 MLJ 371 on the ground that in the case of a criminal
revision petition, there is no provision in the Code for dismissing it for default of appearance and
that the High Court could only dispose it of on the merits.1146
37. Irregularity in petition of revision no bar to its maintainability.-The mere fact that a
criminal revision petition is not in order is no ground for rejecting it on the ground that the affidavit
in support of it is sworn to by the accused himself in contravention of the rules. Once the case has
come before the High Court the court has power to deal with the matter under sections 397 and
401.1147 It cannot be held that the High Court will not exercise the revisional power if it is a fit case
only on the ground that certified copy of the impugned order has not been filed on the record by
the petitioner.1148
38. Application in revision by convicted person who has not surrendered-If maintainable.-It
is a well-established practice of the Patna High Court and also of the Allahabad High Court not to
entertain an application in criminal revision against an order of conviction in which a sentence of
imprisonment has been passed until the convicted persons have surrendered to serve out their
sentences.1149 Police investigation in progress-Magistrate directing police to comply with provisions
of section 170(1). Accused moving Sessions Judge under sections 397 and 399 for making reference
to High Court against order of Magistrate-Preliminary objection that since accused had not
surrendered before Magistrate he was not entitled to move Sessions Judge for making referenceObjection overruled because the police had not yet submitted any charge-sheet against the
accused and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Magistrate to direct the issue of process
against the accused-In that circumstance it could not be said that the accused had failed to obey
the order of the Magistrate.1150
However, there is no such rule of law nor any rule of practice that a person summoned to appear
must appear and submit to the process of the court below before he can invoke the revisional
jurisdiction.1151
39. Power of High Court to review its own judgment.-See Note under section 362, supra.
40. Limitation for revision
(i) Time within which High Court may be moved.-The Patna High Court, as a general practice,
will not entertain save under the most exceptional circumstances, an application in revision after the
expiry of sixty days from the date of the decision or order impugned. When an application is made to
the Sessions Judge beyond or even within the period of sixty days, a further period does not
become available to the applicant from the date when the Sessions Judge refuses to make a
reference. The period of sixty days is intended to cover also proceedings of normal length before
the Sessions Judge, and it will not ordinarily be extended because the applicant negligently or
deliberately delayed to move the Sessions Judge till the period has nearly expired nor in any case
beyond the period occupied in the Sessions Court. In all cases the applicant must come to the High
Court within a reasonable time of the order sought to be revised and ought to do so,
expeditiously.1152
A similar practice obtains in the Calcutta High Court.1153
The admission or non-admission of applications for revision is entirely discretionary and it is not
necessary for the court to prescribe any hard and fast rule but the court should not as a matter of
practice admit applications for revision unless it is satisfied that they are made within a reasonable
time which would appear to be the time granted by statute for admitting appeals. When an
application for revision has been made after the expiry of the period allowed for an appeal it is
proper that the court should ask the applicant to give reasons for the delay and if those reasons are
not sufficient, dismiss the application.1154
Although there is no law of limitation applicable to revision, it is the settled practice of the Allahabad
High Court not to admit them unless they are made within a reasonable time after the order
complained of.1155 Persons who come to High Court in revision against an order under section 107
are expected to do so with the utmost promptitude and certainty within 30 days of the order
against which they complain.1156
77/115
3/15/13
Though there is no limitation prescribed for revision, the practice of the Madras High Court is
regulated by rule 185 of the Criminal Rules of Practice requiring an application to excuse delay if a
revision petition is preferred after a delay of 90 days. If the reasons to excuse delay put forward are
acceptable, the court will entertain the application and admit the revision.1157
In a proper case, a revision court will entertain a petition filed after the conventional period of three
months.1158
Where a criminal revision petition has been admitted, the question of limitation is not of much
importance, there being no limitation fixed by statute for a criminal revision.1159
(ii) No limitation for suo motu exercise of power.-As pointed out by the Supreme Court, if the
High Court exercises suo motu revisional power, the same cannot be denied on the ground that
there is some period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of the power, because none such is
prescribed.1160
(iii) Delay as ground for non-interference.-The High Court will not be inclined to exercise its
discretionary powers of revision in cases where the applicant has made undue delay in coming to
the court for relief.1161 Unexplained delay in filing a revision against an order fining an accused is a
ground for declining to interfere.1162 Interference by revision in criminal cases is purely discretionary
and where the rule of the court is that revision applications are not admitted unless presented
within sixty days, it indicates that the court will, in exercise of that discretion, refuse to interfere in
the case of a belated application.1163 Where an accused applied to the High Court for revision of an
order nine months after the order was passed, the High Court declined to interfere.1164 But where
the delay caused in filing a revision to quash the proceedings is sufficiently explained by the
accused, the High Court can entertain the applications and pass orders thereon.1165 Where improper
order of the lower court allows the accused to escape trial, it will not be allowed to stand on the
mere ground of delay in application for revision when the delay was for good and sufficient
cause.1166 Even a revision filed with undue delay and without any explanation for the delay, might
be entertained if, on a consideration of the case on the merits, it appears that there has been a
failure of justice.1167 Even though the period of limitation in respect of an application in revision has
expired, the High Court may in exceptional circumstances interfere with the Magistrate's order in
exercise of its wide power under section 401. However, power will not be exercised on a party's
application, but suo motu on the ground that the court feels that an illegal or improper order of the
Magistrate has resulted in injustice.1168
41. Treating revision as appeal.-Where a petition has been filed within the period of limitation
prescribed for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal, by virtue of the provision in sub-section
(5) of section 401, the High Court can treat the revision as an appeal.1169 Where the order is
passed under section 249 against which no appeal lies and the complainant files a revision petition,
and only during hearing of the revision petition it is discovered that the impugned order is wrongly
passed under section 249 and in fact it is an order under section 256 and only an appeal lay against
the order, it amounting to an order of acquittal, it should be treated as an appeal under sub-section
(5) of section 401.1170 Once an order of the Magistrate comes to the notice of the High Court in
revision, the proper approach is to examine the legality of the order.1171 The High Court can pass
proper orders in exercise of its powers under section 401.1172 On revision, the High Court is given a
supervisory jurisdiction to secure the correction of a patent error or defect which has resulted in
miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law or irregularity of procedure.1173
42. No withdrawal of such revision.-An accused has no right to withdraw revision filed under this
section, with liberty to take those very pleas before trial court.1174
________________________________________________________
1. AIR 1928 All 287 ; AIR 1954 Hyd 129 (FB).
2. 164 IC 701 : 37 Cr LJ 1022 (1). See also AIR 1938 Rang 161.
3. Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Km. Shobha Bos, 1993 Cr LJ 1246 (All) : 1993 ACrR 132.
4. Nathuni Shah v. Sk. Mohammad Jain, 1987 Cr LJ 1239 (Pat).
78/115
3/15/13
5. 26 NLR 50 : AIR 1930 Nag 61.

6. Cr LJ 714 (Raj).
7. ILR (1945) Nag 74 ; 1945 NLJ 30 : AIR 1945 Nag 33 : 1945 FLJ 73.
8. Shyam Bhikhabhai v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 136 (Guj).
9. Sajjan Kumar v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 623 (Del).
10. 19 OC 136 (137).
11. 17 OC 25 (26).
12. 26 All 249 (255) ; 40 Cal 477 ; UBR (1915) 3rd Qr 83 ; 1942 NLJ 242 ; ILR (1946) Nag 780 : AIR
1947 Nag 35.
13. Dewani Choudhary v. Chaturi Manihi, 1972 Cr LJ 134 (Pat).
14. Khemraj Jugraj v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 1479 (MP).
15. Mathew Zacharish v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 1198 (Ker).
16. State v. Naraindatta, 1966 Cr LJ 663 (MP).
17. ILR (1954) Mad 811 : (1954) 2 MLJ 406 : AIR 1954 Mad 918, dissenting from the contrary view
taken in ILR (1948) Bom 384 : AIR 1949 Bom 29.
18. In re, Mohan Lal, 1973 Cr LJ 103 (Mad).
19. V.P. Manuel v. Kollekkat Parangodan, 1972 Cr LJ 1421 (Ker).
20. Sashindra Haskar v. Akaddas Ali, 1970 Cr LJ 1293 (Assam).
21. State v. Thimmappa H. S., 1985 Cr LJ 1105 (Kant).
22. Per Jenkins C.J., 28 Bom 533 (566). See also 68 MLJ 653 (PC) ; ILR (1940) Kant 83 : AIR 1939
Sind 335 ; Pak LR (1948) Lah 131.
23. Rajeshwar Prasad v. State, 1972 Cr LJ 258 (Pat).
24. Rev. Mons. Sabastlao Francisco Xavier Dos Remedios Monteiro v. State, 1968 Cr LJ 316 (Goa).
25. 9 Luck 61 (64) referring to 5 OWN 357.
26. Makhan Chandra Sen v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 1507 (Tri).
27. Satish Pandurang Jagtap v. State, 1995 Cr LJ 1509 (Bom).
28. Amar Chand Agarwala v. Shanti Bose, 1973 Cr LJ 577 (SC).
29. 1945 PWN 121. See also 23 Pat 457 : AIR 1944 Pat 878.
30. AIR 1954 MB 8 : 1954 Cr LJ 334.
31. S. Abhoy Naidu v. R. Sundararajan, 1994 Cr LJ 641 (Mad).
32. MBLR 1955 Cr 415 : 1957 Cr LJ 67. See also AIR 1962 MP 273 : 1962 (2) Cr LJ 375 (There is no
bar to H. C. exercising its revisional jurisdiction for correcting an error that had crept in order of
Magistrate).
33. 66 Pat 129 : AIR 1948 Pat 229.
34. Shally v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 4026 (P&H).
35. 35 Cr LJ 891 : AIR 1934 Sind 20.
36. 32 PLR 71 : AIR 1931 Lah 145. See 49 Bom LR 148 : AIR 1947 Bom 388 (Trial held on SundayPlea of guilty after refusal of adjournment for legal aid-Conviction set aside).
37. AIR 1931 Lah 97 : 131 IC 375.
38. In re, Chinnappa, 1967 Cr LJ 1341 (Mad).
79/115
3/15/13
39. 1931 MWN 713 (1).

40. 19 Bom 732 (734).
41. Hadis Mia v. State, 1988 Cr LJ 1459 (Gau).
42. 9 Bom LR 706 (709) : 6 Cr LJ 70.
43. 42 Cal 612 ; 45 Mad 913 (FB) ; 2 Pat 708 ; 5 Pat 25 ; 20 LW 327 : AIR 1924 Mad 837 ; AIR
1925 Mad 375 ; 89 IC 388 (N) ; 71 IC 602 (O) ; AIR 1925 Pat 165 ; 33 CWN 576 ; 28 MLJ 690 ; 229
IC 620 : 48 Cr LJ 473 (A mere defect in the judgment of lower court will not justify H. C. in setting
aside that judgment).
44. Mohamed Nagoor Meeran v. State, 1995 Cr LJ 857 (Mad).
45. Sarju Pershad v. State, 1995 Cr LJ 4213 (Del).
46. State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh, 1999 Cr LJ 1830 (SC) : 1999 (1) Crimes 127 : AIR 1999 SC 1201 :
1999 AIR SCW 863 : (1999) 2 SCC 617 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 293 : 1999 (2) East Cri C 33.
47. 34 Bom LR 1110.
48. Passang Lama v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 1350 (Sikkim).
49. AIR 1951 HP 25.
50. Abdul Majid v. Adai, 1970 Cr LJ 950 (Assam).
51. M/s. Kerala Transport Co. v. D. S. Soma Shekar, 1982 Cr LJ 1065 (Kant).
52. AIR 1952 HP and Bom 27.
53. 1952 Cr LJ 480 : AIR 1952 Pepsu 66.
54. AIR 1936 Nag 181, relying on 1957 Cr LJ 1428 : AIR 1952 Manipur 38.
55. Abdul Samad Bepari v. Manasha Charan Bakshi, 1966 Cr LJ 205 (Cal).
56. Pratap Chandra v. State, 1994 Cr LJ (NOC) 440 (Ori).
57. 48 Cr LJ 950 : AIR 1948 Pat 29.
58. Barbara v. Sethurathinam Pillai, 1970 Cr LJ 1721 (Mad).
59. 1957 Cr LJ 67 (MB) ; AIR 1964 (J&K) 1.
60. AIR 1961 Punj 171 : 1961 (1) Cr LJ 553. See also 1960 BLJR 84.
61. Surendra Barik v. Gurubari Nayak, 1991 Cr LJ 1473 (Ori).
62. 18 PLT 628 : AIR 1937 Pat 317.
63. 62 Cal 749 : AIR 1935 Cal 316.
64. 10 OWN 1037 : AIR 1933 Oudh 430.
65. Eralottu Chathu v. Patingattillath Gopalan, 1981 Cr LJ 691 (Ker).
66. 27 Cal 320 (324) : 4 CWN 311.
67. 3 PLJ 147 : 19 Cr LJ 249.
68. 24 WR (Cri) 14. See 14 Cr LJ 148 : 19 IC 148. Under section 405, Cr.P.C. 1861(section 435 of
the Code), the Calcutta High Court set aside an order of conviction on the ground that the
Magistrate was wrong in not having given copies of certain documents applied for by the accused) :
14 WR (Cri) 77 (78).
69. 1964 (1) Cr LJ 486 (Trip).
70. Jamuna Singh v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 862 (Pat).
71. AIR 1931 Sind 13 : 32 Cr LJ 543.
80/115
3/15/13
72. Ayodhyaprasad v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 712 (Bom).

73. Rat 794 ; State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad Singh, 1999 (1) Crimes 2 (SC).
74. 15 PLT 475 : AIR 1934 Pat 551. See also 1962 (1) Cr LJ 345 (MP).
75. Beda Kanta Phukun v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 1197 (Gau). (Non-appearance of complainant in a
summons case-Court issuing bailable warrant to compel complainant's appearance-Order is illegalHigh Court can quash it without notice to complainant).
76. Dharamvir Singh v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 884 (P&H).
77. Pancham Singh v. State, 1967 Cr LJ 1677 (Pat).
78. 35 Cr LJ 808 : AIR 1934 Rang 60.
79. 37 Cr LJ 603 : AIR 1936 Pesh 32.
80. Josoda Nandan Mukherjee v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 1322 (Cal).
81. ILR (1941) Kant 324 : AIR 1941 Sind 82.
82. Mohammad Rafi v. Jayakumar, 1995 Cr LJ 2941 (Mad).
83. Om Pratap Singh v. State, 1995 Cr LJ 3887 (All).
84. 2 Cal 110. See also 13 Lah 599 : AIR 1932 Lah 362 (Error must be such as to lead to injustice).
85. 14 Bom 115 (118).
86. Leda Bhutia v. State, 1984 Cr LJ 429 (Sikkim).
87. Mahadevayya Veerbhadrayya Hiremath v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 270 (Mys).
88. 93 IC 699 : AIR 1926 Nag 348.
89. 97 IC 953 : AIR 1926 Oudh 557 ; 10 OWN 345 : AIR 1933 Oudh 257 : 11 OWN 810 (811, 812) ;
10 OWN 902 : AIR 1933 Ori 421 ; AIR 1953 Bhopal 30 : 1953 Cr LJ 1011.
90. 15 ALJ 642 : 18 Cr LJ 765. See also 38 Mad 1028.
91. 1959 Cr LJ 1389 ; AIR 1959 All 781.
92. 56 Bom 554 : AIR 1932 Bom 637 ; AIR 1964 J&K 1.
93. 106 IC 678 : AIR 1928 Nag 113 ; 109 IC 214 : AIR 1928 Nag 172 ; 24 SLR 466 : AIR 1930 Sind
315 ; 1959 ALJ 293 : AIR 1959 All 511 (Failure of medical witness to appear for cross-examinationNothing relevant to be elicited from him after charge-Mere technical defect).
94. ILR (1949) All 484 : AIR 1949 All 213 ; 6 Sau LR 524 ; AIR 1955 Sau 73.
95. 59 Cal 478 : AIR 1931 Cal 626.
96. 90 IC 915 : AIR 1925 Oudh 739.
97. 8 SLR 25. See also AIR 1933 Oudh 430 ; AIR 1935 Cal 316.
98. AIR 1935 All 647 : 1935 ALJ 423.
99. 5 PR (Cri) 1906. See also 7 PR (Cri) 1919.
100. 39 IC 1054.
101. 4 LBR 315 (FB). See also 4 LBR 49.
102. AIR 1931 Rang 161 : 133 IC 489.
103. Alamohan Das v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 860 (SC).
104. 4 LW 373 ; 35 IC 816.
105. 21 Cal 827.
106. 10 OLJ 208 : AIR 1924 Oudh 32.
81/115
3/15/13
107. Banwarilal Agarwal v. A. Suryanarayan, 1994 Cr LJ 370 (Ori).

108. AIR 1959 Mys 158.
109. 35 PLR 268 : AIR 1933 Lah 1019.
110. AIR 1938 Mad 529 : (1938) 1 MLJ 403.
111. Harikishan Agrawal v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 788 (Bom).
112. 2 Cal 110.
113. Vasundara Traders v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 1539 (Kant).
114. Rameshwar v. Ramibai, 1987 Cr LJ 1952 (MP).
115. State v. Koti Poojary, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 517 (Mys).
116. 1956 ALJ 414 : AIR 1956 All 525.
117. Ramu v. Jagannath, 1994 Cr LJ 66 (SC).
118. Harnam Singh v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 690 (Del).
119. 13 Pat 63 : AIR 1934 Pat 214. See also 68 MLJ 176.
120. Asstt. Collector of Customs v. L. R. Melawani, 1970 Cr LJ 885 (SC).
121. AIR 1932 Mad 495 : 33 Cr LJ 783.
122. Madhudas v. State, 1994 Cr LJ 3595 (Raj).
123. Ramanlal v. Karthikeyan, 1994 Cr LJ 3720 (Mad).
124. 16 Cr LJ 20 : 26 IC 324.
125. Vinod Kumar Jain v. State, 1991 Cr LJ 669 (Del).
126. Chellammal v. Packiam, 1976 Cr LJ 1666 (Mad), where case remanded for retrial.
127. 1 CLR 268 (272).
128. 58 Punj LR 448 : 1957 Cr LJ 92.
129. 2 Pat 708 ; ILR (1949) Mad 64 : AIR 1948 Mad 422 : (1948) 1 MLJ 223.
130. Thakur Das v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 1 (SC).
131. Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, 1973 Cr LJ 1176 (SC).
132. Naval v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 2842.
133. Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 Cr LJ 1610.
134. 6 PR (Cri) 1876.
135. 20 CWN 1296 : 18 Cr LJ 294.
136. 11 Cr LJ 331 : 7 MLT 182.
137. 28 Punj LR 461 : AIR 1927 Lah 797 (2).
138. 33 Cr LJ 801 : 34 Bom LR 1110 : AIR 1932 Bom 473. See also 229 IC 620 : 48 Cr LJ 473.
139. 54 IC 496.
140. Satyadeo Singh v. State, 1972 Cr LJ 700 (Pat).
141. Traders Syndicate v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 770 (2) (Pat).
142. Nanardan Sahu v. Arakhit Sahu, 1967 Cr LJ 1354 (Ori).
143. Corporation of Calcutta v. Algu Show, 1978 Cr LJ 220 (Cal).
82/115
3/15/13
144. 118 IC 112 : AIR 1929 Mad 510 ; AIR 1956 TC 191 ; 1957 MPLJ 89 ; AIR 1962 Manipur 23.
145. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Delhi Development Authority, 1982 Cr LJ 2230 (Del).
146. Mohan Singh v. State, 1996 Cr LJ (MP).
147. M/s. Charan and Company v. P.K. Chandra Bose, 1994 Cr LJ (NOC) 296 (Mad).
148. 55 All 301 : AIR 1933 All 264 (FB) ; AIR 1960 Raj 213 ; AIR 1961 Guj 137.
149. AIR 1948 Pat 29.
150. N. Shabir Hussain v. Forest Range Officer, 1969 Cr LJ 539 (AP).
151. Iqbal Mohammed Memon v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr LJ 2418.
152. Bibi Sakho v. Shahabuddin Mian, 1972 Cr LJ 1481 (Pat).
153. M. N. Rajan v. State, 1980 Cr LJ 177 (Ker).
154. 4 Pat 488 (502).
155. Anant Singh v. State, 1976 Cr LJ 1609 (Cal).
156. Siraj v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 86 (Kant).
157. 30 PLT 327.
158. AIR 1957 MB 172 ; AIR 1964 Punj 284.
159. State v. Moti Lal Kanoria, 1966 Cr LJ 1210 (SC).
160. Muma Mir v. Ghulam Nabi Sheikh, 1981 Cr LJ 170 (J&K) ; Bagula Naik v. State of Orissa, 1999
Cr LJ 2077 (Ori) : 1999 (16) OCR 260 : 1999 (87) Cut LT 808.
161. 1952 ALJ 571 : AIR 1953 All 101.
162. Ram Chandra Prasad v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 1580 (Sikkim).
163. 1976 Cr LJ 1339 (Mad).
164. Cantonment Board v. Pyare Lal, 1966 Cr LJ 93 (SC).
165. Sahmba Gopi Tari v. Upendra Ladu Sawant, 1971 Cr LJ 559 (Goa).
166. M.C. Guha v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 1230 (Pat).
167. 31 Cut LT 58.
168. Arakhita Patnaik v. State, 1994 Cr LJ 2242 (Ori).
169. Raju Sahu v. State, 1994 Cr LJ (NOC) 439 (Ori).
170. Natrajan v. State, 1994 Cr LJ (NOC) 103 (Mad).
171. K. Ch. Pandu Ranga Rao v. Secretary, Agricultural Appellate Committee, 1985 Cr LJ 176 (AP).
172. 28 CWN 783 : AIR 1924 Cal 980.
173. Per Henderson, J., 41 CWN 251.
174. Thangavelu Chettiar v. Ponnammal, 1966 Cr LJ 1149 (Mad).
175. 1930 ALJ 1535 : AIR 1931 All 12.
176. State v. Raghubir Das, 1970 Cr LJ 1051 (Del).
177. 35 Cr LJ 95 : AIR 1933 Pat 598.
178. Gurdit Singh v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 1205 (P&H).
179. Phulena Thakur v. Devi Thakur, 1978 Cr LJ 307 (Pat).
180. Anup Singh v. Om Prakash, 1981 Cr LJ 489 (All) : 1981 ACrR 84.
83/115
3/15/13
181. Hariram v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 2135 (MP).

182. 26 WR 69 (70) ; 1957 AWR (HC) 552.
183. Sri Sambu Trading Co. v. State, 1972 Cr LJ 542 (AP).
184. Praveen Kumar v. State, 1989 Cr LJ 2537 (HP).
185. AIR 1957 Cal 25.
186. AIR 1959 AP 29 ; AIR 1960 Pat 232.
187. AIR 1935 Nag 23.
188. AIR 1943 Mad 587 : (1943) 1 MLJ 468.
189. Shashi Bhushan Gupta v. Mool Chand Gupta, 1996 Cr LJ 1743.
190. Suraya Ibrahim Shaikh v. Ibrahim Rahim Shaikh, 1996 Cr LJ 2415 (Bom).
191. 1958 SCJ 614, relied on 1960 Cr LJ 1141 : AIR 1960 Trip 25.
192. Shanti Ranjan Majumdar v. Alo Banik, 2000 Cr LJ 1621 (Gau).
193. Range Forest Officer v. Anant Venkataram Hegde, 1978 Cr LJ 1374 (Kant).
194. M.P. Ponnamma v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 1241 (Kant).
195. 36 Mad 275.
196. Cricket Association of Bengal v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 1432 (SC).
197. 9 Luck 546 : AIR 1934 Oudh 151.
198. Pratap v. State, 1973 Cr LJ 565 (SC).
199. Mohammed v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 1120 (Ker).
200. 36 Mad 275 (281).
201. 2 Mad 38(39) : 2 Weir 566.
202. Ramesh Chandra J. Thakur v. A.P. Thaveri, 1973 Cr LJ 201 (SC).
203. Abdul Sayeed Khan v. Jagarnath Nonia, 1967 Cr LJ 1243 (Pat).
204. 1887 AWN 144.
205. Rat 577 : 16 Bom 580.
206. 32 PLR 71 : AIR 1931 Lah 145 ; 50 CWN 88 ; AIR 1952 Cal 249 : 1952 Cr LJ 1119.
207. 4 Pat LJ 435. See also 58 Cal 902 : AIR 1931 Cal 618 ; 28 SLR 140 : AIR 1934 Sind 72 ; 1953
ALJ 346 : AIR 1953 All 491.
208. 26 SLR 345 : AIR 1932 Sind 211.
209. Deputy Accountant General v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 966 (Ker).
210. Nilamani Das v. Bhikari Nayak, 1992 Cr LJ 2242 (Ori).
211. 58 Cal 1303 : AIR 1931 Cal 410.
212. AIR 1953 VP 16 : 1953 Cr LJ 980.
213. 2 ALJ 173. See also 3 IC 285 ; AIR 1931 Lah 97.
214. 20 SLR 90.
215. Sudhakar Das v. Dayanidhi Mohanty, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 54 (Ori).
216. Monmathanath Halder v. Niranjan Mondal, 1967 Cr LJ 1135 (Cal).
217. Nagar Palika Officer v. Rajendra Singh Sengar, 1971 Cr LJ 381 (MP).
84/115
3/15/13
218. A. Jogi Naidu v. Koyalada Venkataramana, 1988 Cr LJ 963 (AP).

219. Kantiaya v. Kashi Nath Tewari, 1979 Cr LJ 409 (All) ; People's Union for Civil Liberties v. C.B.I.,
1997 Cr LJ 3242 (Del) ; All India Democratic Women's Association v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 2629 (Mad).
220. 33 PLR 911 : AIR 1932 Cal 559, referred to in 56 All 158 (180) (FB) ; 1960 ALJ 880 : AIR 1961
All 447.
221. Chaganti Kotaiah v. Gogineni Venkateshwar Rao, 1973 Cr LJ 978 (SC).
222. Rinzing Choda v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 1270 (Sik) ; Maninder Kaur v. State, 2000 Cr LJ 3111 (Del).
223. Krishna Kant v. Dilip Kumar, 1984 Cr LJ 1003 (All) : 1984 ACrR 156.
224. Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 1725 (Pat).
225. 2 SLR (Cri) 25.
226. 56 All 158 (FB).
227. 20 PR (Cri) 1903.
228. Nain Singh v. Nain Singh, 1992 Cr LJ 2004 (J&K).
229. Gopal Chandra Sahu v. Choudhuri Behera, 1989 Cr LJ 1616 (Ori).
230. Avadh Bihari Thakur v. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr LJ 4497 (Pat) : 1999 (2) East Cri C 314 : 1999
(3) Pat LJR 83.
231. 7 OWN 895 : AIR 1930 Oudh 497.
232. 33 PLR 384 : AIR 1932 Lah 364. See also 34 PLR 32 : AIR 1932 Lah 613 ; AIR 1941 Lah 324 :
43 PLR 378.
233. Himatlal Ratilal Rajyagor v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 165 (Guj).
234. AIR 1940 Sind 233 : ILR (1941) Kant 32.
235. AIR 1961 Ker 250, affirmed : AIR 1959 SC 144, relied on : 1962 (2) Cr LJ 506 : AIR 1962 SC
1530.
236. D. Balasubramania Mudaliar v. Doraikaunu Ammal, 1966 Cr LJ 547 (Mad).
237. AIR 1936 All 313 : 37 Cr LJ 562 (1).
238. AIR 1953 Bilaspur 12 : 1953 Cr LJ 719.
239. 1954 Cr LJ 1720 : AIR 1954 All 783. See also Notes under section 394, supra.
240. 1907 AWN 204 ; AIR 1953 MB 230 : 1953 Cr LJ 1397 (Unless no offence is legally made out on
the prosecution case).
241. AIR 1930 Rang 349 : 32 Cr LJ 206. See also AIR 1952 Assam 157.
242. State v. Futi Sherbani, 1980 Cr LJ 114 (Sikkim).
243. 44 Cr LJ 801 : AIR 1943 Pat 313.
244. AIR 1959 Manipur 15 : 1959 Cr LJ 211 ; 1957 Cr LJ 144 (Mani).
245. AIR 1951 Ori 31 : 17 Cut LT 53.
246. 1959 Cr LJ 305 : AIR 1959 Assam 67.
247. 27 Bom 84 (87) ; AIR 1949 All 599.
248. Kandha Behera v. Kulia Mohanty, 1978 Cr LJ 267 (Ori).
249. AIR 1951 Ori 31.
250. 20 Cal 633 (640) ; 1883 AWN 61.
251. 15 Bom 331 (336).
85/115
3/15/13
252. Municipal Corporation Delhi v. Rattanlal, 1971 Cr LJ 1485 (Del).

253. Rampati Kuer v. Jadunandan Thakur, 1968 Cr LJ 355 (Pat).
254. State v. Dastagirsab, 1981 Cr LJ 1157 (Kant).
255. Manesh Malakar v. Protiva Rani Malakar, 1989 Cr LJ 1540 (Gau).
256. Amrutlal v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 1728 (Bom).
257. Rat 244.
258. Haneefa v. State, 1993 Cr LJ 2125 (Ker).
259. AIR 1936 Nag 160. But see AIR 1943 Sind 39 (FB).
260. 44 Cr LJ 293 : AIR 1943 Sind 39 (FB).
261. 67 CWN 497.
262. Dakhini Prasad Srivastava v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 204 (All) : 1977 ACrR 463.
263. 1964 (2) Cr LJ 176 : AIR 1964 Pat 358.
264. In re, Somiah, 1970 Cr LJ 618 (AP).
265. K.G. Vershase v. Annamma Hariamma, 1967 Cr LJ 1419 (Ker).
266. State v. Raj Kumar Agarwalla, 1977 Cr LJ 206 (SC).
267. Rajbeer Singh v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 1184 (All), where judgment and order of Sessions Judge set
aside.
268. Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 486 (Pat).
269. S.P. Mallik v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 19 (Pat).
270. Beli Ram v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 776 (HP).
271. Hacchiram v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 2229 (MP).
272. Bharat Trading Co. v. State, 1984 Cr LJ 106 (Gau).
273. 9 All 134 (135) : 1886 AWN 322 ; UBR (1897-1901) Vol. 1, 91 (92).
274. 27 Cal 320 ; 4 CWN 311, followed.
275. 13 Cr LJ 771 : 17 IC 403 ; 6 CLR 120.
276. 28 OC 384 : AIR 1925 Oudh 321.
277. Abdul Halim v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 498 (All).
278. 15 Cr LJ 619 : 25 IC 627.
279. 115 IC 169 : AIR 1929 Nag 87 : 116 IC 79 (2). See also LBR (1893-1900) 41 ; 23 ALJ 433 ; 50
All 722 (PC) ; 53 Bom 564 ; AIR 1953 Sau 161 : 1953 Cr LJ 1521 ; AIR 1962 Punj 348 ; 43 PLR 707 :
AIR 1941 Lah 425 (In the event of a complete acquittal, the only remedy is an appeal against the
acquittal by the Government). In 7 Pat 579, the Patna High Court took up the case of a man who
had been acquitted and altered the order of acquittal into a conviction on a reference by the
Sessions Judge recommending that a person who was acquitted of an offence under section 326,
I.P.C., be convicted of that offence. No mention is made of sub-section (3) and the court appears
to have overlooked it entirely. This decision is wrong and has been dissented from in 7 Rang 538.
280. S.K. Grover v. Chandra Prakash, 1986 Cr LJ 56 (Mad).
281. Kusta Balsu Kandnekar v. State, 1987 Cr LJ 89 (Bom).
282. Kadiresan v. Kasim, 1987 Cr LJ 1225 (Mad) ; Chandra v. Ramchandran, 1997 (3) Crimes 454
(Mad) ; Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh, 1998 (4) Crimes 63 (SC).
283. Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh, 1999 Cr LJ 16 (SC) : 1998 (4) Crimes 63 : AIR 1998 SC 3380 :
86/115
3/15/13
1998 AIR SCW 3326 : (1998) 7 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1574 : 1998 (2) East Cri C 1098 : 1999
(24) ACr R 134 : 1998 (3) Chand Cri C 165.
284. AIR 1925 Lah 439.
285. Petta v. Food Inspector, 1967 Cr LJ 1328 (2) (Ker).
286. Gurdayal Singh v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 148 (Raj).
287. 1962 (1) Cr LJ 615 : AIR 1962 Mani 20.
288. Suggi Bind v. State, 1968 Cr LJ 1197 (Pat).
289. 2 Weir 569 : 7 MHCR (App) v.
290. 7 PLT 272 : AIR 1926 Pat 36.
291. 54 MLJ 456.
292. 20 LW 919 : AIR 1925 Mad 367.
293. Ramekbal Tiwary v. Madan Mohan Tiwary, 1967 Cr LJ 1076 (SC).
294. State v. Shri Rama Mal, 1970 Cr LJ 1303 (Del).
295. 37 Cr LJ 417 : AIR 1936 All 147.
296. AIR 1938 Mad 723 : (1938) 2 MLJ 225, following AIR 1956 Nag 8 : 1955 Nag LJ 563 : (1960) 1
MLJ 341 : AIR 1960 Mad 240 : 1960 Cr LJ 834.
297. 18 Cr LJ 737 : 40 IC 737, where no retrial was ordered because the sentence was petty.
298. State v. Vinai Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Cr LJ 3558 (All) : 1992 ACrR 270.
299. Dukhi v. State of U.P., 2000 Cr LJ 519 (All).
300. Ashok Kumar Kabra v. Kamala Devi Shaw, 1996 Cr LJ 876 (Cal).
301. 36 PR (Cri) 1884 ; 43 PR 1905 : 5 MHCR (App) x (xi) ; 17 Cr LJ 300 : 35 IC 172.
302. 19 PR (Cri) 1905 ; 3 Cr LJ 341.
303. 36 PR (Cri) 1884 ; 13 PR (Cri) 1874.
304. 12 PR (Cri) 1874 ; 13 PR (Cri) 1874.
305. 19 PR (Cri) 1879.
306. 28 PR (Cri) 1879, relied on in 1938 OWN 1062 : AIR 1938 Oudh 261.
307. 41 Cr LJ 172.
308. Devi Ram v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 536 (Del).
309. 1953 ALJ 686.
310. State v. Daulat Ram, 1980 Cr LJ 929 (SC).
311. AIR 1954 Pat 190.
312. 1960 Cr LJ 1083 : AIR 1960 J&K 106.
313. AIR 1936 Pesh 172 : 37 Cr LJ 139.
314. (1954) 1 MLJ 497. See also AIR 1954 Ajmer 40.
315. AIR 1965 Mys 128.
316. 31 Cut LT 140.
317. Chellappan v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 1021 (Ker).
318. Ram Shankar Rai v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 1402 (Pat).
87/115
3/15/13
319. Aslam Ikbal Wali Mohammed v. State, 1976 Cr LJ 317 (Kant).

320. Bansilal v. Laxman Singh, 1986 Cr LJ 1603 (SC).
321. Banchhanidhi Singh v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 397 (Ori).
322. Ahmed Ali v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 1041 (Gau).
323. Benudhar Routra v. Raula, 1991 Cr LJ 220 (Ori).
324. AIR 1956 Cal 156.
325. (1958) 1 Mad LJ 243 : AIR 1958 Mad 286 : 1958 Cr LJ 775.
326. Ram Lochan v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 544 (All) : 1978 ACrR 76, where accused was acquitted.
327. AIR 1948 Mad 492 : (1948) 1 MLJ 444.
328. AIR 1933 Mad 434 (1) : 34 Cr LJ 1183.
329. 3 PLJ 632 : 19 Cr LJ 902.
330. AIR 1954 Ajmer 38.
331. 68 MLJ 336 : AIR 1935 Mad 325.
332. 15 All 205 (206) : (1893) AWN 105.
333. 19 WR (Cri) 56 ; 6 All 40 ; 55 MLJ 674 (FB) ; AIR 1956 MB 65.
334. 23 CWN 1031.
335. 9 SLR 95 : 32 IC 131.
336. 1887 AWN 95.
337. 22 Cal 391.
338. 108 IC 265 : AIR 1928 Lah 546.
339. 3 PLJ 354 : 19 Cr LJ 884. See also 48 Mad 774 ; 1960 Cr LJ 900 : AIR 1960 Cal 436 (Offence of
illegal encroachment on municipal land-Conviction under wrong number of bye-law-High Court can
change the conviction under the proper number of bye-law when accused is not prejudiced).
340. 1938 ALJ 769 : AIR 1941 Pat 492 : 42 Cr LJ 579 (Can pass sentences under sections 143 &
144, I.P.C., while setting aside the convictions under sections 295 and 379, I.P.C., provided the
sentences do not exceed those passed by the lower appellate court) ; 55 Bom LR 937 (Accused
convicted for offences under sections 4(a) and 5, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and
sentenced to 3 month's RI in respect of offence under section 4(a), but no separate sentence
passed in respect of latter offence. In revision against his convictions, High Court can set aside
conviction under section 4(a), but maintain his conviction under section 5 and impose a sentence of
3 month's, RI).
341. 10 PR (Cri) 1869.
342. 9 Lah 214 : AIR 1927 Lah 708.
343. AIR 1933 Lah 661 : 35 Cr LJ 350, following 37 Mad 119 and 1 Rang 436 ; 57 IC 663 (Alteration
of finding under section 323 to one under section 325, I.P.C.). But See contra AIR 1941 Cal 90 : 42
Cr LJ 383 (High Court has no power to alter a conviction under section 323 to one under section
325, I.P.C.).
344. 7 Luck 102 : AIR 1931 Oudh 274 ; AIR 1935 Pesh 67 : 36 Cr LJ 1438 (Conviction under
sections 324-114, I.P.C., can be altered to one under sections 324-34, I.P.C.).
345. 1950 ALJ 750 : AIR 1950 All 412.
346. 41 All 587 (590).
347. 11 Pat 392 : AIR 1932 Pat 241.
348. 53 All 226 : AIR 1931 All 17.
88/115
3/15/13
349. 1935 ALJ 393 : AIR 1935 All 597.

350. AIR 1934 Lah 122 : 36 Cr LJ 423.
351. 3 LBR 232.
352. See 37 Mad 119 ; 12 PR (Cri) 1904 ; 8 LLJ 188 ; 8 Lah 136 ; 26 OC 44 ; 92 IC 851 : AIR 1926
Nag 323 ; 20 SLR 352.
353. 44 All 332.
354. 48 Bom 510 ; Rahees Khan v. State of U.P., 1997 ACr R 821.
355. 4 Rang 140. The decision in 37 Mad 119 was dissented from in 50 Mad 259 and the decision in
44 All 332 was followed. The matter is now set at rest by the decision of the Privy Council in 50 All
722 : AIR 1928 PC 254.
356. 37 Cr LJ 1039 : AIR 1936 Pesh 172 ; ILR (1939) Kant 75 : AIR 1938 Sind 202 (Bar in subsection (3) applies to partial as well as to a total acquittal) ; 8 OWN 1299 : AIR 1932 Oudh 25.
357. 47 Cr LJ 662 : AIR 1947 Cal 162.
358. 33 Cr LJ 360 : AIR 1931 Raj 321, following 50 All 722 (PC).
359. 24 ALJ 414 : AIR 1926 All 332. See also 41 PLR 1 : AIR 1939 Pat 28 : 39 Cr LJ 968 : AIR 1939
Rang 193 : 39 Cr LJ 623 ; 43 CWN 25 : AIR 1938 Cal 613 ; AIR 1938 Lah 739 : 178 IC 791.
360. 29 SLR 54 : AIR 1935 Sind 245. See also AIR 1956 Bom 231 : 1959 Cr LJ 496 (2).
361. Radha Krishna v. State of U.P., 1974 Cr LJ 430 (All) (The Sessions Judge imposing lesser
penalty for murder-No perverse exercise of discretion-Interference by High Court not justified).
362. In re, Pallela Ramana, 1969 Cr LJ 1453 (AP).
363. 2 Luck 503 (506).
364. 1959 Ker LT 902 : 1960 Cr LJ 592 : AIR 1960 Ker 147.
365. 118 IC 438 (2) : AIR 1929 Lah 187.
366. 67 PLR 1904.
367. Gyan Singh v. State of U.P., 2000 Cr LJ 2802 (All).
368. 4 CWN 245 (247).
369. Mayadhar Paik v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 1054 (Ori).
370. 34 Cr LJ 24 : AIR 1932 Sind 159. See also 18 CWN 646 (Reduction of sentence on
consideration of fresh facts).
371. Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 Cr LJ 2463 (SC).
372. Kartar Singh v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 252 (Del).
373. Chander Bhan Ram Chand v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 197 (P&H).
374. Anwar Uddin v. State, 1976 Cr LJ 1786 (All).
375. C.M. Rao v. Rohit Kumar Kanchanlal Bhavsar, 1995 Cr LJ 1848 (Guj).
376. Janrao Balaji Tajne v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 834 (Bom).
377. Jalil Ahmad v. State, 1979 Cr LJ 514 (All) : 1979 ACrR 98.
378. Food Inspector v. K.S. Raphael, 1981 Cr LJ 1149 (Kant).
379. State v. S.R. Rangadamappa, 1982 Cr LJ 2364 (SC).
380. Iqbal Singh v. State, 1994 Cr LJ 354 (P&H).
381. Sheo Ram v. State, 1994 Cr LJ (NOC) 309 (P&H).
89/115
3/15/13
382. (1964) 2 Andh WR 152 : AIR 1964 AP 449 ; 1963 (1) Cr LJ 371 (Mani) (The Sessions Judge not
aware of exercise of previous sentence against accused-Fit case where High Court should interfere
and direct that sentence passed should run concurrently with previous sentence). See also Note 8
to section 427 and Note 8 to section 482.
383. 16 Cal 730.
384. 21 IC 129.
385. AIR 1957 Punj 134.
386. 5 MLT 217 : 4 IC 1128.
387. Ambalal Chimanlal Choksi v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 1385 (Bom).
388. State v. Samaj, 1969 Cr LJ 1498 (Guj).
389. Jagdish Singh v. State, 1987 Cr LJ 1338 (P&H).
390. 1958 Cr LJ 965 : AIR 1958 Raj 167 : 1958 Raj LW 349.
391. S.K. Razak v. Riyasathbi, 1975 Cr LJ 1131 (Bom).
392. AIR 1963 J&K 56.
393. Balkishun Sao v. Munno Khaw, 1970 Cr LJ 586 (Pat).
394. Yunus v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 73 (All).
395. Heleu Rubber Industries v. State, 1973 Cr LJ 262 (Ker).
396. ILR (1940) Kant 494 : AIR 1940 Sind 175.
397. Assad Ganai v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 1103 (J&K), where order set aside and proceedings quashed.
398. 1933 ALJ 272 : 35 Cr LJ 189 (1).
399. 48 Cr LJ 143. See also Notes under section 121, supra.
400. Subhwanti v. State, 1968 Cr LJ 727 (All).
401. 27 ALJ 385.
402. Sankarsan Nath v. Dr. Sachidananda Das, 1969 Cr LJ 575 (Ori).
403. Varied Porinchukutty v. State, 1967 Cr LJ 893 (Ker).
404. Beer Singh v. State, 1973 Cr LJ 755 (All).
405. Alingal Mohammed Kutty v. Vaniyanthodi Pathumma, 1968 Cr LJ 351 (Ker).
406. Prodyot Kumar Mukherjee v. R. Girsappe, 1973 Cr LJ 1361 (Cal).
407. Caetano Colaco v. Jao Rodrifues, 1966 Cr LJ 1412 (Goa).
408. Sajjan Singh Bhairun Singh v. Sajjan Singh Jagannath Singh, 1969 Cr LJ 441 (Raj).
409. Kookkil Kelu Nair v. Kottammal Thanduparakkal Kunhi Mohammed Haji, 1971 Cr LJ 218 (Ker).
410. Bijoyanand Das v. Sirish Chandra Das, 1966 Cr LJ 679 (Ori).
411. Chandikumar Sarkar v. Probhat Kumar Biswas, 1968 Cr LJ 600 (Cal).
412. Chandi Prasad v. Chandhari Chandra Pratap Singh, 1970 Cr LJ 193 (All).
413. Chandrasekhar Singh v. Siya Ram Singh, 1979 Cr LJ 13 (SC).
414. Tiguti Venkata Peddiraju v. Balireddi Appanna, 1966 Cr LJ 256 (AP).
415. R.H. Bhutani v. Mani J. Desai, 1969 Cr LJ 13 (SC) ; Vijay Kumar v. Neeraj Kumar, 1990 Cr LJ 21
(J&K).
416. Raja Lal Singh v. Ram Prasad Singh, 1975 Cr LJ 1268 (Pat).
90/115
3/15/13
417. Bisse Gowda v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1170 (Mys), where final order quashed in revision.
418. Digendra Kumar Deb v. Tarini Charan Dey, 1970 Cr LJ 1212 (Trip).
419. Narsingh Dayal v. C.D. Dogra, 1972 Cr LJ 1610 (HP).
420. Selvadas v. Rev A.M. Bensam, 1972 Cr LJ 799 (Mad).
421. Madho Singh v. Mst. Ladan, 1974 Cr LJ 1164 (Raj).
422. Rangalang G.S. Debardao Langthsa, 1973 Cr LJ 972 (Gau).
423. Ghulam Mohammad v. Harichand, 1978 Cr LJ 299 (J&K).
424. Kurpan Ali v. Sriram Chandra Talukdar, 1976 Cr LJ 1444 (Mad).
425. Bishnu Charan Naik v. Harihar Sahu, 1984 Cr LJ 836 (Ori). See also Tanulata Devi v. Nikhil
Bandhu Mishra, 1982 Cr LJ 1665 (Gau) : The final order of the Magistrate under section 145(6), Cr.
P.C. declaring possession of the party dispossessed, the omission by the Magistrate to render the
finding that the dispossession is wrongful as well held to be only a formal defect and to avoid delay
a harassment to party case not remitted to the Magistrate to rectify the defect and High Court
itself on evidence on record that it was so. Another omission of the Magistrate is to add in the order
that such party would be entitled to possession "until evicted therefrom in the due course of law,
held it being a formal irregularity and on that count the order cannot be declared invalid and the
High Court itself rectified it by adding the omitted matter.
426. Sachchida Nand Misra v. State, 1987 Cr LJ 1366 (All).
427. Sukhdev Bhanja v. Manulu Sahu, 1987 Cr LJ 758 (Ori).
428. P. George v. M. Narayanan Nair, 1983 Cr LJ 574 (Mad).
429. Tshering Wangchuk Bhutia v. Naksingh Bhutia, 1983 Cr LJ 1904 (Sikkim).
430. Vijay Kumar v. Neeraj Kumar, 1990 Cr LJ 21 (J&K).
431. Dhaneswar Mallik v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 1711 (Ori).
432. 35 CWN 320 : AIR 1931 Cal 521.
433. AIR 1923 Lah 663.
434. S. Nihal Singh v. Arjan Das, 1983 Cr LJ 777 (Del).
435. 13 Cut LT 27 : AIR 1948 Pat 31.
436. Rat 669.
437. 1 PLT 127 : 21 Cr LJ 338.
438. 1928 MWN 801.
439. 38 Cr LJ 742 : AIR 1937 Sind 81 ; Kapil Prajapat v. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr LJ 4810 (Pat).
440. 1934 ALJ 241 : AIR 1934 All 514.
441. Lachhmi Nand v. Govind Ram, 1969 Cr LJ 688 (Del).
442. AIR 1930 Pat 30 : 10 PLT 618. See also 2 Pat 257.
443. AIR 1964 Tri 67 : 1964 (2) Cr LJ 735.
444. Jadu Behera v. Dhaneswar Samantaray, 1985 Cr LJ 1732 (Ori).
445. Asiatic Oxygen & Acetylene Co. v. State, 1976 Cr LJ 1596 (Cal).
446. Dr. Kanhaiyalal Modi v. Dwarkaprasad Modi, 1991 Cr LJ 3004 (MP).
447. 99 IC 126 : AIR 1927 All 149.
448. 26 All 238 : 31 IA 67 : 14 MLJ 149 (PC) ; 12 SLR 34 : 48 IC 434 ; 14 SLR 74 : 58 IC 506.
449. Chiranjilal Parmar v. State, 1968 Cr LJ 1529 (Raj).
91/115
3/15/13
450. See 44 IA 218 : 45 Cal 94 : 33 MLJ 486 (PC) ; 37 Cr LJ 716 (717, 718) : AIR 1936 Sind 47.
451. AIR 1942 Oudh 462, approved : Pak LR (1949) Lah 888 : AIR 1950 Lah 74.
452. Nageswar Singh v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 193 (Gau).
453. ILR (1936) Nag 205 : AIR 1936 Nag 192.
454. 19 WR (Cri) 53 (54).
455. 6 PLT 626 : AIR 1925 Pat 696.
456. 3 Pat 591. See also Note 23 to section 247, supra.
457. AIR 1949 Cal 573 : 50 Cr LJ 979.
458. 15 PR (Cri) 1914 : 23 IC 483.
459. 40 Mad 1130 (1134).
460. 8 PWR (Cri) 1911 : 12 Cr LJ 274 : 10 IC 851.
461. 1963 Ker LJ 1121. See also Note under section 344, supra.
462. 50 Mad 839 ; AIR 1951 Pat 230 : 51 Cr LJ 1578 ; 1962 (1) Cr LJ 661 (Pat).
463. AIR 1933 Pat 116 : 34 Cr LJ 1145.
464. Mahendrakumar Tewari v. State, 1987 Cr LJ 1450 (MP).
465. Gopal Krishna v. State, 1987 Cr LJ 1487 (Pat).
466. Reserve Bank Employee's Association v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 711 (Bom).
467. 27 IC 550.
468. State v. Brahameshwar Prasad Sinha, 1983 Cr LJ 8 (Pat).
469. 31 PR (Cri) 1881 : 35 PR (Cri) 1882 ; AIR 1938 Pat 176 ; AIR 1938 Pat 12.
470. 29 Bom LR 488. See also 40 CWN 128 : 37 Cr LJ 904.
471. 10 CWN 446 (448) : 3 Cr LJ 385.
472. 1956 ALJ 521 : 1956 Cr LJ 1179 : AIR 1956 All 633.
473. 11 PR (Cri) 1879.
474. 28 MLJ 379 : 17 Cr LJ 193. See also Bhop Singh v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1156 (All).
475. 11 OLJ 748 : AIR 1925 Ori 233.
476. 1900 AWN 47 (48).
477. Sambhu Nath Sadhukhan v. Maghesh Kumar Sadhu Khan, 1981 Cr LJ 1102 (Cal).
478. H.S. Ahluwalia v. D.C. Jain, 1994 Cr LJ (NOC) 448 (P&H).
479. H.S. Ahluwalia v. D.C. Jain, 1994 Cr LJ (NOC) 448 (P&H).
480. 23 PWR (Cri) 1912 : 13 Cr LJ 567.
481. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chandra Prabha Devi, 1990 Cr LJ 1884 (All).
482. Syed Iqbal Hussain v. Syed Nasamunnissa Begum, 1992 Cr LJ 1823 (AP).
483. Lakshyapati Padhan v. Udian Padhanen, 1982 Cr LJ 1953 (Ori).
484. Sulochana Devi v. Ramkumar Chauhan, 1981 Cr LJ 493 (All).
485. Arunkumar Surajmal Jain v. Chandanbai Rupchandra Jain, 1980 Cr LJ 601 (Bom).
486. Hemendra Nath Chowdhury v. Archana Chowdhury, 1971 Cr LJ 817 (Cal).
487. Santi Ram v. Kanaklata Devi, 1993 Cr LJ 3317 (Gau).
92/115
3/15/13
488. State v. Ghonsudding, 1972 Cr LJ 808 (Mys).

489. Kanwar Dang v. Dr. Vasudeo Dang, 1977 Cr LJ 1008 (HP).
490. Md. Basir v. Noor Jahan Begum, 1971 Cr LJ 547 (Cal).
491. Chhela v. Sohani, 1969 Cr LJ 1328 (Raj).
492. Jalandar Gorakh Kirtikar v. Shobha J. Kirtikar, 1973 Cr LJ 1501 (Bom).
493. Balak Ram v. State, 1973 Cr LJ 750 (All), where order was set aside and the case remanded to
the Magistrate.
494. Pijush Majumdar v. Ramesh Nama, 1982 Cr LJ 452 (Gau).
495. Pichan Cheerath Mamoo v. Asstt. Public Prosecutor, 1980 Cr LJ 901 (Ker).
496. Dr. Sadanand Murlidhar Burma v. State, 1976 Cr LJ 68 (Bom).
497. Kedar Prasad Sinha v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 631 (Pat).
498. Sukar Narayan Bakhia v. Rajnikant R. Shah, 1982 Cr LJ 2148 (Guj).
499. State v. J.K. Narayana Rao, 1975 Cr LJ 1156 (Kant).
500. State v. Gendalal, 1975 Cr LJ 815 (Bom).
501. 15 PR (Cri) 1905 : 2 Cr LJ 131.
502. 5 SLR 179.
503. AIR 1939 Rang 427 : 41 Cr LJ 216.
504. Baidyanath Murmu v. Bhagwat Murmu, 1971 Cr LJ 571 (Pat).
505. Tejuram Jain v. Diwan Chand Chawala, 1984 Cr LJ 779 (Ori).
506. Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramkishan Agarwal, 1984 Cr LJ 1198 (Gau).
507. M.A. Mohammed Ali v. Dr. R. Ramadoss, 1966 Cr LJ 1453 (Mad).
508. Fakirbhai Chhaganlal v. Rajitlal, 1982 Cr LJ 2261 (Guj).
509. 4 Lah 38.
510. 20 Pat LT 712 : AIR 1940 Pat 32.
511. 26 Mad 130 (132).
512. 53 CWN 291 : AIR 1949 Cal 257.
513. (1963) 2 Andh WR 43 : AIR 1964 AP 59.
514. ILR (1943) Nag 637 : AIR 1943 Nag 236.
515. ILR (1936) Nag 87 : AIR 1936 Nag 181.
516. 108 IC 329 : AIR 1928 Pat 347.
517. AIR 1957 Assam 148 : 1957 Cr LJ 1101.
518. 1 Rang 632. The case is however, dissented from in AIR 1933 Rang 89 : 144 IC 677. The
Judicial Commissioner's Court of Ajmer has adopted the view taken in 1 Rang 632. See AIR 1951
Ajmer 82 : 52 Cr LJ 1448.
519. 34 Cr LJ 861 : AIR 1933 Sind 205.
520. 100 IC 127 : AIR 1927 Lah 1353. See also 19 Punj WR (Cri) 1910 : 6 IC 639 ; 107 IC 775 : AIR
1928 Lah 1926 ; 88 IC 1054 : AIR 1925 Ori 673 ; 117 IC 452 (1) : AIR 1929 Oudh 240 ; 20 SLR 7 :
AIR 1926 Sind 101.
521. 57 All 353 ; AIR 1956 Pepsu 30 (The High Court will not interfere with improper exercise of
discretion).
93/115
3/15/13
522. 33 PLR 215 : AIR 1932 Lah 258. See also Notes under section 360.
523. Chandrapal v. Harpyari, 1991 Cr LJ 2847 (All).
524. See 27 Bom LR 1353 (1363).
525. 48 Mad 262 (FB). See also 55 All 301 : AIR 1933 All 264 (FB). (Section 423 (1), clause (d) read
with section 401 does not authorise the High Court, in revision, to award costs of the proceeding
before it) : AIR 1959 Pat 151 (A successful party is not entitled under section 148(3) to get the
costs incurred by him in the revisional court).
526. ILR (1940) Kant 119 : AIR 1939 Sind 321. See also Note 115 to section 386, supra.
527. 8 LBR 290. See also Notes under section 335, infra.
528. 27 All 415, see section 456, which empowers a court of revision to pass an order under that
section.
529. State v. Kamta Prasad, 1966 Cr LJ 762 (MP).
530. State v. Krishnacharya Appacharya Jahagirdar, 1967 Cr LJ 635 (Mys).
531. Chaman Lal v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1160 (Del).
532. 8 LBR 290 (292).
533. 22 Cut LT 419 : 1957 Cr LJ 78 : AIR 1957 Ori 10 ; Natabar Behera v. State, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 692
(Ori).
534. Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, 1971 Cr LJ 1188 (SC).
535. 16 Cr LJ 767 : 31 IC 367.
536. Ramkrishna Gochhikar v. Gadadhar Pujapanda, 1966 Cr LJ 1173 (Ori).
537. 1952 Cr LJ 881 : AIR 1952 Pat 261.
538. Kailash Chand v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 1342 (Del).
539. 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 691 : (1964) 2 Mad LJ 583.
540. Ram Asrey v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 405 (All).
541. Sheo Saran Thakur v. Bishwa Nath Thakur, 1968 Cr LJ 772 (Pat).
542. 12 PWR (Cri) 1911 : 11 IC 577.
543. 6 Lah 166.
544. 35 PLR 373 : 36 Cr LJ 383 (1).
545. 82 IC 173 : AIR 1925 Lah 129.
546. 19 Bom LR 912.
547. AIR 1949 Cal 573 : 50 Cr LJ 979.
548. ILR (1946) Bom 207 : AIR 1946 Bom 276 (FB).
549. Patel Bechar Narsingh v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 1351 (Guj).
550. 62 Bom LR 869 : 1961 (1) Cr LJ 639.
551. Jasman Rai v. Sonamaya Rai, 1980 Cr LJ 500 (Sikkim).
552. Bisan Singh v. Hanuman Singh, 1997 Cr LJ 344 (Raj).
553. Mohd. Afzal v. Noor Nisha Begum, 1997 (2) Crimes 493 (Del).
554. Public Prosecutor v. Chowdari Tejeswari Rao, 1973 Cr LJ 320 (AP).
555. See 1960 Cr LJ 33 : AIR 1960 AP 1 (FB).
556. Sahab Singh v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 1202 (SC).
94/115
3/15/13
557. 1953 Cr LJ 162 : AIR 1952 Bilaspur 15.

558. 22 Pat LT 237 : AIR 1941 Pat 287.
559. 31 SLR 51 : AIR 1937 Sind 125.
560. Rat 634.
561. 8 LBR 290 (292).
562. 98 IC 113.
563. 50 CWN 88 : AIR 1946 Cal 452.
564. 57 Mad 1101 : AIR 1934 Mad 47 : 67 MLJ 195. See also 39 Cr LJ 445.
565. Premwati v. State, 1991 Cr LJ 268 (MP).
566. ILR (1942) Nag 494 : AIR 1942 Nag 38.
567. Dondapani Samanta Rai v. Duryodhan Pradhan, 1968 Cr LJ 1190 (Ori).
568. AIR 1942 Rang 48 : 43 Cr LJ 492 ; AIR 1951 HP 56 ; ILR (1953) Hyd 293 ; (1957) 2 Andh WR
565 : AIR 1958 AP 514.
569. 1956 Cr LJ 1246 : AIR 1956 VP 30.
570. 20 Cr LJ 764 ; 53 IC 492 ; 21 Cr LJ 343 : 55 IC 676. See also 20 Cr LJ 30 : 48 IC 510 ; 6 NLJ
119 : 73 IC 335 ; AIR 1934 Nag 138 ; AIR 1934 Sind 183 ; 36 Cr LJ 331 (1) ; AIR 1954 HP 46.
571. Bhagbati Devi Goenka v. Sunil Kumar Ganguly, 1971 Cr LJ 1003 (Cal).
572. 39 Mad 561. See also AIR 1933 Sind 412 : 35 Cr LJ 519 (2).
573. 61 Bom LR 118 : AIR 1959 Bom 314.
574. 51 Mad 84.
575. 20 LW 937 : AIR 1925 Mad 315.
576. 52 Bom 151 : 9 Luck 61 : 39 PLR 967 (When complaint does not disclose offence) : AIR 1951
Assam 129 (Do) ; AIR 1952 Punj 196 (Absence of definite accusation in complaint) ; 1956 Ker LT 11
: AIR 1957 TC 319 (Where the admitted facts show that the accused acted in exercise of right of
defending his own person and property). See also AIR 1933 Raj 297 : 35 Cr LJ 52 ; 57 Bom 690 : AIR
1933 Bom 409 : 27 SLR 214 : AIR 1933 Sind 196 : AIR 1934 Lah 434 : 36 Cr LJ 20 ; 40 PLR 776. But
the fact that the case against the accused is a weak one is no ground for quashing the charge in
revision : 33 PLR 231 : AIR 1932 Lah 349 (1).
577. 88 IC 181 : AIR 1925 Nag 345. See also 2 SLR (Cri) 25 : 25 Cal 233 ; 31 PLR 809 : AIR 1930
Lah 881 ; 10 Pat 596 : AIR 1931 Pat 140 ; AIR 1933 Sind 169 ; ILR (1953) Hyd 753 : AIR 1942 Rang
48.
578. 23 ALJ 21 (23) : 86 IC 217 : 9 Lah 61 (72).
579. AIR 1957 Assam 148 : 1957 Cr LJ 1101.
580. 34 Cr LJ 1049 : AIR 1933 Sind 169.
581. AIR 1953 Pat 142 : 1953 Cr LJ 931.
582. 40 PLR 311.
583. 25 Cal 233 (235) ; 26 Cal 786 (790) : 3 CWN 491 ; 22 Cal 131 ; 24 WR (Cri) 4 ; 22 NLR 34 :
AIR 1926 Nag 304 ; 103 IC 100 : AIR 1927 Sind 231 (Especially when a charge has been framed and
only the defence of the accused remains to be heard).
584. ILR (1942) All 344 : AIR 1942 All 148 (FB).
585. Ram Kumar Keshori v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 1288 (Cal).
586. ILR (1940) Kant 157 : AIR 1940 Sind 65.
95/115
3/15/13
587. 33 PR (Cri) 1910 ; AIR 1927 Lah 825 ; AIR 1927 Lah 731 ; AIR 1928 Lah 945 ; 1 SLR (Cri) 30 ;
ILR (1940) Kant 157 : AIR 1940 Sind 65.
588. 47 Mad 722. See also cases cited herein.
589. 3 Luck 287.
590. Rabindranath Mohanty v. State, 1993 Cr LJ 2507 (Ori).
591. 8 SLR 143.
592. 89 IC 247 : AIR 1925 Sind 231.
593. 36 Cr LJ 881 : AIR 1935 Sind 81.
594. Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury v. State, 1989 Cr LJ 1888 (Gau), where proceedings quashed.
595. Haladhara Karji v. Dileswar Subudhi, 1989 Cr LJ 629 (Ori).
596. ILR (1944) Nag 238 : AIR 1943 Nag 327 ; AIR 1951 Ajmer 6 : 51 Cr LJ 1606 ; 1956 ALJ 414 :
AIR 1956 All 525.
597. Jaskaran Lodha v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 103 (Gau).
598. Man Mohan v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 1241 (All).
599. 47 CWN 251.
600. Ram Kumar v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 427 (Del).
601. AIR 1936 Nag 249.
602. 62 Cal 469 : AIR 1935 Cal 731.
603. Miss Shakun v. Delhi Administration, 1990 Cr LJ 525 (Del), where order framing charge
quashed.
604. AIR 1935 Rang 292 : 36 Cr LJ 1238.
605. 2 SLR (Cri) 25 ; 28 Bom 533 ; 18 SLR 274 ; AIR 1934 Sind 183 (1).
606. 54 Mad 251 : AIR 1931 Mad 240 : 60 MLJ 694.
607. AIR 1933 Sind 88 : 34 Cr LJ 364. See also AIR 1956 Bom 232 (The High Court has to consider
only the allegation made in the charge).
608. 52 Cr LJ 1388 : AIR 1951 Assam 131 (FB).
609. 45 CWN 53 : AIR 1940 Cal 579.
610. In re, Ram Badan Choubey, 1982 Cr LJ 1960 (Cal).
611. 22 Cal 131 (138).
612. 8 IC 190 : 11 Cr LJ 577. See also 1951 MLJ 527 : AIR 1951 Mad 191 (Proceedings for failure to
implement invalid award by Industrial Tribunal can be quashed).
613. ILR (1946) Kant 285 : AIR 1947 Sind 68 ; AIR 1954 Hyd 129 (FB) (Section authorises
interference on ground of harassment of accused by unjustified application of illegal procedure). In
17 LW 69 the High Court declined to quash proceedings instituted in a court without jurisdiction, but
directed further proceedings to be stayed.
614. Joginder Kumar v. State, 1991 Cr LJ 2897 (Del).
615. 53 CWN 822.
616. AIR 1950 Ajmer 10 ; AIR 1956 All 619.
617. (1938) 1 MLJ 810 : 47 LW 136 ; 17 Cut LT 168.
618. 39 Mad 561.
619. 51 PLR 374 : AIR 1950 BP 83.
96/115
3/15/13
620. 16 ALJ 458 ; 16 ALJ 734. See also 52 Bom 151 (160).
621. 1905 AWN 238 : 2 ALJ 673.
622. 44 PLR 104 : AIR 1942 Lah 122. See also 147 IC 447 : 35 Cr LJ 449.
623. See 26 Cal 786 ; 38 Cal 68 ; 73 IC 335 ; 39 PLR 957 ; 1940 NLJ 183 : 41 Cr LJ 753 (Facts
proved not constituting an offence) ; ILR (1942) Nag 494 : AIR 1942 Nag 88 ; ILR (1944) Nag 238.
624. 12 PLT 937 : AIR 1932 Pat 72.
625. R.R. Diwakar v. B. Guttal, 1975 Cr LJ 90 (Kant).
626. AIR 1933 Cal 647 (2) : 35 Cr LJ 29.
627. 11 Bur LT 59 : 18 Cr LJ 512.
628. 20 Bom 543 (545) ; 20 WR (Cri) 23 (27).
629. 21 Cr LJ 379 : 55 IC 859. See also 31 PLR 893 (1) ; AIR 1930 Cal 346.
630. 1 Luck 48.
631. 6 OWN 937.
632. Bhima Naik v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 1923 (Ori) ; Deena Nath Acharya v. Daitari Charan Patra, 1975
Cr LJ 1931 (Ori).
633. AIR 1954 Hyd 129 (FB).
634. 1927 MWN 716 ; 8 PR (Cri) 1904 ; 40 PLR 776 ; 10 ALJ 144 (If the court below has not
adopted the procedure prescribed by law but has followed a procedure of its own) : AIR 1935 Mad
257 (2) : 68 MLJ 282 : 58 Mad 430. It is very unusual for the High Court to hold up a preliminary
enquiry while it adjudicates upon an order as to the admissibility in evidence of certain statements.
It is undesirable to interfere with the discretion of the trial court by a decision at that stage.
635. State v. Maganlal Gordhandas Mer, 1995 Cr LJ 1581 (Guj).
636. 33 PR (Cri) 1910, followed in 122 IC 224 : AIR 1929 Lah 67.
637. AIR 1927 Lah 731 ; 41 CWN 251 ; AIR 1951 TC 35 ; AIR 1955 Mys 135.
638. 23 ALJ 21.
639. AIR 1928 Lah 945.
640. 52 Cal 188.
641. 5 LLJ 36 ; 71 IC 246 (1).
642. 1933 ALJ 30 : AIR 1933 All 211.
643. AIR 1951 TC 35.
644. 1942 ALW 627.
645. AIR 1950 Ajmer 14 (2) : 51 Cr LJ 1248 (1).
646. Per Reddy, J., in ILR (1953) Hyd 293. See also AIR 1956 Mys 30 (It is only in cases where
there is absolute paucity of evidence in support of the charge framed that a charge can and will be
quashed).
647. 8 PR (Cri) 1904. See also 28 IC 111.
648. 2 SLR (Cri) 25.
649. 7 LLJ 525, dissenting from 45 PR (Cri) 1885 and relying on 5 Lah 550. But see 1 Luck 48.
650. 6 OWN 937.
651. 31 Cal 858 (860).
652. BLR (FB) Rul. 426.
97/115
3/15/13
653. 34 IC 327.
654. 12 IC 991.
655. Jay Narayan Misra v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 207 (Cal).
656. 37 Cr LJ 618 : AIR 1936 Pesh 101.
657. Ashru Bindu Roy v. Chittraranjan Banerjee, 1978 Cr LJ 557 (Cal).
658. 6 PLT 215 : AIR 1925 Pat 533.
659. Per Fazl Ali, J., in 17 Cut LT 1 : AIR 1953 SC 411.
660. Bimram Sah v. Biswanath Sah, 1975 Cr LJ 1691 (Pat).
661. 1937 MWN 51 ; AIR 1953 Cal 560 : 1953 Cr LJ 1259 (Trial court not paying proper or sufficient
attention to broad principles-Conviction ought not to be allowed to stand).
662. Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, 1975 Cr LJ 1732 (SC).
663. Ataur Rahman v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 191 (Gau).
664. Satho Tanti v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 76 (Pat).
665. Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta v. Sudhir Kumar Mazumdar, 1966 Cr LJ 986 (Cal).
666. M.A. Waheed v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 1059 (AP).
667. Haridas Nivrutti Shinde v. Dinkar Janardhan Bhosle, 1997 Cr LJ 3836 (Bom).
668. Jyotilal Chakraborty v. Dipak Dutta, 1995 Cr LJ 930 (Cal).
669. 165 IC 950 : AIR 1936 Sind 243.
670. Piyare Lal v. Shankar Dass, 1972 Cr LJ 185 (HP).
671. Joginder Singh v. State, 1968 Cr LJ 378 (Raj).
672. Kala Bhika Bania v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 7 (Bom).
673. Vellaiammal v. Thirumal Asari, 1987 Cr LJ 1094 (Mad).
674. Netai Das v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 957 (Cal).
675. Krushna Chandra Hoha v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1307 (Ori).
676. 157 IC 472 : 36 Cr LJ 1215 ; Shri Ram Kishore v. State, 1973 Cr LJ 1527 (HP).
677. AIR 1938 Raj 103 : 39 Cr LJ 492.
678. AIR 1937 Sind 292 : 32 SLR 87.
679. Bavajee Fakkir Muhammed v. State, 1967 Cr LJ 641 (Ker).
680. AIR 1965 All 120 : 1965 (1) Cr LJ 267 : 1963 ALJ 966.
681. Uma Charan Chand v. Charan Das, 1969 Cr LJ 1086 (Ori).
682. Talak Raj Kohli v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 1691 (Del).
683. 14 Cal 361 (363).
684. Rat 908. See also 124 IC 449 ; 25 Pat 571 : AIR 1947 Pat 339 (The High Court not precluded,
if it considers that the evidence so justified, from making other and different or additional findings of
fact).
685. Jata Shankar Jha v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cr LJ 2108 (Raj).
686. 19 Cr LJ 666 : 45 IC 1002. See also 1937 MWN 51 noted above.
687. 77 IC 723 : AIR 1924 Lah 585 : AIR 1953 Pat 313 (In suitable cases, it is not only right but it is
its duty, if the ends of justice require to go into facts).
98/115
3/15/13
688. 42 IC 147, followed in 5 PLT 538.

689. 104 IC 450 : AIR 1928 Pat 13.
690. Jaggan Nath v. Laxmi Narain, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 270 (All).
691. Henkholam Kuki v. Kadapati Tangkhul, 1985 Cr LJ 1381 (Gau).
692. Mithlesh Kumari v. Bindhawasani, 1990 Cr LJ 830 (All) : 1989 ACrR 788.
693. Mahadeo v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 858 (All).
694. 11 OLJ 330 : AIR 1924 Ori 336.
695. AIR 1935 Rang 192 : 36 Cr LJ 1044. See also AIR 1938 Rang 103 and AIR 1937 Sind 293 noted
above.
696. 13 Pat 150 : AIR 1933 Pat 697 : AIR 1960 Assam 37. See also AIR 1936 Sind 243 noted above.
697. Hamjisab Mehamadsab Shahapur v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 36 (Mys).
698. 22 Cal 998 (1001).
699. Ibid.
700. Prabhawati Devi v. Radhey Shyam Tripathi, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 705 (2) (All).
701. 58 Cal 1081 : AIR 1931 Cal 619, referred to in 35 PLR 157 (159) : AIR 1933 Lah 236.
702. 8 Bom 197 : 12 Bom 377 (380).
703. B.K. Parekh v. Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, 1971 Cr LJ 1620 (Del) ; Balkrishna
Pandurang Moghe v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 Cr LJ 4496 (Bom).
704. 97 IC 953 : AIR 1926 Oudh 557 ; 9 OWN 116 : AIR 1932 Oudh 113 ; 10 OWN 345 : AIR 1933
Oudh 257, relied on in AIR 1935 Oudh 176 : 11 OWN 810 (811, 812). See also AIR 1933 Pat 697.
705. Hoshiarey v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 1230 (All).
706. 2 PLW 298 : 18 Cr LJ 915.
707. 7 OWN 556 : AIR 1930 Oudh 321 : AIR 1949 Oudh 78 : 1948 OWN 219 ; 1950 ALJ 57 (Lower
courts failing to discuss important evidence).
708. (1962) 1 Andhra LT 116 : AIR 1963 AP 334.
709. AIR 1948 Pat 409 : 49 Cr LJ 696 ; AIR 1955 Ajmer 10 (Material discrepancies in evidence not
explained or referred to by courts below-High Court will review evidence).
710. Leofred Lobo v. State, 1967 Cr LJ 746 (Goa).
711. Suraj Mohan Babu Mishra v. State, 1967 Cr LJ 767 (Guj).
712. Dutia Patel v. State, 1968 Cr LJ 421 (Ori).
713. 10 Cal 1047 : 12 Bom 377 (390) ; Rat 908.
714. 2 CWN 672 (674). So also an omission to examine all the complainants' witnesses, before
declaring the accused guilty : 24 PWR (Cri) 62 (63).
715. 1 PLT 121 : 21 Cr LJ 374.
716. 1941 Rang LR 566 : AIR 1941 Rang 324.
717. AIR 1956 All 267.
718. 20 Cr LJ 370 : 50 IC 978. See also 2 All 336 (339).
719. AIR 1965 All 120 : 1965 (1) Cr LJ 267.
720. 12 PR (Cri) 1905 : 74 PLR 1905.
721. 8 PR (Cri) 1909.
99/115
3/15/13
722. 4 Cr LJ 232.
723. 14 Cal 169 (172).
724. Ram Kawal Upadhya v. Dudhnath Pandey, 1969 Cr LJ 1197 (Pat).
725. Phulchand Kesarimal Mutha v. D.R. Naik, 1976 Cr LJ 1946 (Bom) ; Pradip Kumar Mukherjee v.
Chaitali, 1996 Cr LJ 1161 (Cal).
726. Asit Kumar Barman v. Radha Barman, 1994 Cr LJ 955 (Cal).
727. Idan Singh v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 556 (Raj) ; State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathvedan
Namboodiri, 1999 Cr LJ 1443 (SC) : 1999 (1) Crimes 62 : AIR 1999 SC 981 : 1999 AIR SCW 603 :
(1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 (24) ACrR 536 : 1999 (38) ACrC 453 : 1999 (1) East Cri C 729 : 1999 Mad
LJ (Cri) 298 ; Bala Ram Rout v. State, 1999 Cr LJ 1703 (Ori) : 1998 (15) OCR 508.
728. R.A. Usmankutty v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 1664 (Ker).
729. Manijan Bibi v. Nameirkpam Mangi Singh, 1988 Cr LJ 1438 (Gau).
730. Venkatesh v. State, 1967 Cr LJ 503 (Mys).
731. Manif Dhavle v. Sonabai, 1977 Cr LJ 1642 (Bom).
732. Bhimabhai Kalabhai v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 2585 (Guj).
733. 19 Mad 238 : 2 Weir 461.
734. Chander Prakash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash, 1968 Cr LJ 1153 (Del).
735. Chanan Singh Kishan Singh v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 506 (P&H).
736. K.K. Nandi v. Amitabha Banerjee, 1983 Cr LJ 1479 (Cal).
737. Sridhar Das v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 2907 (Ori).
738. 2 Bom LR 334.
739. 1962 (1) Cr LJ 812 (Cal).
740. 6 Bom LR 379 (398) : 28 Bom 533 ; AIR 1949 Cal 56 ; 49 Cr LJ 598 ; AIR 1950 Pat 508 (Mere
misappreciation of evidence is not sufficient ground for disturbing finding of fact).
741. Hardevi Malkani v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1089 (All).
742. Bisram Singh v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1332 (All).
743. Mohammad Sariff Suleman Nadaf v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 1351 (Bom).
744. AIR 1953 Manipur 6 (Do) ; 1956 Ker LT 952 (The High Court will not sit in judgment over
Magistrate's appreciation of evidence) 1960 MPLJ 632.
745. Baramappa Balappa Byadarahatti v. Yamanappa, 1968 Cr LJ 264 (Mys).
746. Rajendra Singh v. Promilla Singh, 1982 Cr LJ 2119 (Gau).
747. Girish Chandra v. Sushilabai, 1987 Cr LJ 1815 (MP) ; Narkarunai Flora Sahayarani v. M.
Uthirayasami, 1997 Cr LJ 4469 (Mad).
748. Tirtha Naik v. State, 1991 Cr LJ 2182 (Ori).
749. 60 IC 422.
750. Nagawwa v. Veerama Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 Cr LJ 1533 (SC).
751. 77 IC 302.
752. Khetra Basi Samal v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 369 (SC).
753. 56 IC 856.
754. 46 All 64. See also 28 NLR 106 : AIR 1932 Nag 97.
100/115
3/15/13
755. Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, 1973 Cr LJ 1404 (SC).

756. 27 ALJ 775.
757. Ahmed Noor Khan v. State, 1972 Cr LJ 779 (Gau).
758. (1944) 2 MLJ 183 : AIR 1945 Mad 111 ; AIR 1955 Cal 470 : 1955 Cr LJ 1243 (Finding of fact
supported by one set of witnesses need not be disturbed in revision merely because evidence of
other set of witnesses has not been considered).
759. Ghimiray Bhutia v. Wangey Lepcha, 1983 Cr LJ 625 (Sikkim).
760. A.S. Puri v. K.L. Ahuja, 1970 Cr LJ 1444 (Del).
761. 16 Cr LJ 230 : 14 Bom 115 (118) ; 14 Bom 331 ; Rat 177 ; 21 IC 467 : 14 Cr LJ 595 : 27 IC 902
; 8 SLR 199 ; 23 SLR 216 (221) ; AIR 1929 Sind 90 ; 1949 ALJ 520. See also AIR 1928 Pat 13 and
AIR 1935 Rang 192 noted above.
762. M. Madiah v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 734 (Kant).
763. 18 Cr LJ 435 : 38 IC 995.
764. Ahilandammal v. S. Balasubramania lyer, 1965 (2) Cr LJ 783 (Mad).
765. 17 CWN 379 : 13 Cr LJ 897.
766. Pachaimarathan v. State, 1972 Cr LJ 124 (Mad).
767. 24 Cr LJ 203 : AIR 1923 Nag 155.
768. Thimmiah v. State, 1967 Cr LJ 685 (Mys).
769. 4 PLT 265 : 72 IC 959.
770. 108 IC 80 : AIR 1928 Mad 369.
771. Kripasindhu Pothal v. State, 1986 Cr LJ 862 (Ori).
772. AIR 1933 Sind 139 : 34 Cr LJ 802.
773. 28 OC 384 : AIR 1925 Oudh 321.
774. 24 Cr LJ 476 : AIR 1923 Mad 237 (2) ; AIR 1933 Lah 236. See also AIR 1933 Ori 117 : 10 OWN
47 : AIR 1933 Oudh 195 ; 34 Cr LJ 793 ; AIR 1935 Sind 105 : 36 Cr LJ 464 ; 1950 ALJ 764 : AIR 1950
All 507 (Bribery cases) ; AIR 1952 Kutch 4 ; AIR 1952 Kutch 24 ; AIR 1952 Kutch 91 ; AIR 1953
Kutch 1 ; AIR 1954 Kutch 33 ; AIR 1955 Kutch 1 ; AIR 1955 Bhopal 17 ; AIR 1956 Bhopal 14 ; AIR
1955 Raj 195 ; AIR 1955 Sau 39 ; AIR 1955 AP 59 ; AIR 1952 Trip 6 ; AIR 1952 Ajmer 45 (1) : AIR
1952 HP & Bom 27 ; 1952 ALJ 392 : ILR (1953) Hyd 529 ; AIR 1953 Hyd 303 ; 1960 Cr LJ 258 : AIR
1960 Mys 24 ; AIR 1960 AP 233. (Finding as to the expediency of prosecution) ; AIR 1963 Raj 77 ;
Chandmal v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 137 (Raj) ; Amini Kumar Ghose v. Sudhir Ranjan Poddar, 1971 Cr LJ
507 (Tri) ; S.P.S. Jayam & Co. v. Nehrusadan, 1977 Cr LJ 1101 (SC).
775. AIR 1923 Oudh 8 (2) ; 6 Luck 668 : AIR 1931 Oudh 172 ; AIR 1933 Oudh 568 : 35 Cr LJ 296 ;
AIR 1934 Lah 264 : 35 Cr LJ 1447 ; ILR (1944) Kant 246 : AIR 1944 Sind 222 ; 1950 ALJ 669 (When
the lower appellate court has not given reasons for its findings it may not be possible for High Court
to adhere to the general rule ; AIR 1954 HP 21 : AIR 1956 All 297 ; AIR 1956 Sau 25 (High Court will
not permit a simple question of fact to be agitated) ; AIR 1957 Mad 405 ; (High Court will not
determine disputed questions of fact).
776. Goura Chandra Naik v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 275 (Ori) ; T. H. Suresh v. Food Inspector, 1989 Cr LJ
2550 (Ker).
777. Zakir Husain v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 876 (All).
778. Anadi Sahu v. Narendra Naik, 1969 Cr LJ 499 (Ori).
779. Ramchandra Goving Take v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 112 (Bom) ; Kirtan Das v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 347
(Ori).
780. Tara Chand v. Goverdhan Singh, 1973 Cr LJ 83 (HP).
101/115
3/15/13
781. Buli Dei v. Krushna Mohan Pahadsingh, 1995 Cr LJ 3681 (Ori).

782. State v. Appa Balu Ingale, 1993 Cr LJ 1029 (SC).
783. Anirudha Pati v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 122 (Ori).
784. Ratha Jena v. State, 1986 Cr LJ 490 (Ori).
785. Sailendra Nath Hati v. Aswini Mukherji, 1988 Cr LJ 343 (Cal).
786. Mannu Nehera v. State, 1988 Cr LJ 1911 (Ori).
787. State v. Nakula Sahu, 1979 Cr LJ 594 (SC).
788. Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi v. State, 1989 Cr LJ 1945 (Guj).
789. Nila Naik v. Shyamsundar Mohapatra, 1966 Cr LJ 566 (Ori).
790. M.P. Kaunan v. State, 1966 Cr LJ 659 (Ker).
791. Jhalkar Singh v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 1230 (MP).
792. Sridhar Sahu v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 506 (Ori).
793. Sushil Kumar Datta v. State, 1985 Cr LJ 1948 (Cal).
794. Bipin Bihari Sahu v. State, 1986 Cr LJ 406 (Ori).
795. Dhani Ram v. State, 1976 Cr LJ 152 (J&K).
796. 4 PLJ 289 : 20 Cr LJ 375 ; ILR (1950) Nag 526 : AIR 1950 Nag 92 (Finding based on good
material) ; AIR 1961 Mys 7 (Findings based on evidence).
797. AIR 1942 Oudh 473 : 18 Luck 408 ; Babu Raghunath Naik v. Mrs. Terezinha Pacheco Faria,
1967 Cr LJ 1005 (Goa).
798. 8 Bom LR 851 (852).
799. 95 IC 606 : AIR 1926 Nag 459.
800. N. Ramarao Mane v. Radha Rukmini Bai, 1973 Cr LJ 547 (Mys).
801. Gopal Subramani Pandit v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 36 (Mys), case remanded.
802. 9 Bom LR 706 (708) : 1960 Ker LT 488 : AIR 1960 Ker 335 (The High Court does not interfere
unless special grounds are made out).
803. R. Jagdish Murty v. Balaram Mohanty, 1992 Cr LJ 996 (Ori).
804. Andiappan v. State, 1986 Cr LJ 1018 (Mad).
805. 1962 (1) Cr LJ 13 (Assam).
806. 1963 Cr LJ 561 (Punj).
807. Narayan Sahu v. Sushma Sahu, 1992 Cr LJ 2912 (Ori).
808. Sen Mahasay v. Corporation of Calcutta, 1966 Cr LJ 525 (Cal).
809. State v. Marigowda, 1982 Cr LJ 1397 (SC).
810. Daya Chand v. Sahib Singh, 1991 Cr LJ 1370 (SC).
811. AIR 1954 SC 726.
812. Manoranjan Nayak v. Babu, 1919 Cr LJ 3214 (Ori).
813. 81 IC 897 : AIR 1925 Nag 123.
814. 85 IC 367 : AIR 1925 Ori 558. See also AIR 1933 Oudh 430 : 10 OWN 1037 ; 58 CWN 410
(Mere fact that no opportunity was given to the witness to explain certain things would not entitle
High Court to interfere).
815. Keshav Gangaram Prabhu Mhambrey, 1969 Cr LJ 609 (Goa).
102/115
3/15/13
816. 45 All 656 (661), approving observations of Piggot, J., in 36 All 403 (405) ; 1944 ALJ 419 : AIR
1944 All 257 (FB) (Finding must be manifestly perverse or patently erroneous) ; 1949 ALJ 520.
817. Brahma Naik v. Ram Kumar Agarwalla, 1974 Cr LJ 567 (Ori).
818. Delhi Development Authority v. Lila D. Bhagat, 1975 Cr LJ 435 (SC).
819. 9 Bom LR 1385 (1386) ; 19 WR (Cri) 1 ; 6 Bom LR 1096 (Unless the finding of fact is so
manifestly erroneous that a miscarriage of justice would result from its remaining uncorrected) ; AIR
1951 Assam 151 : 52 Cr LJ 1457 (Unless the finding of fact is based on inadmissible evidence or it is
otherwise manifestly erroneous) ; AIR 1952 Ajmer 17 ; AIR 1954 All 758 : 1954 Cr LJ 1581 (Unless
there was no evidence to support the finding or the evidence was so bad that no reasonable person
could act upon it) ; AIR 1959 Trip 49 (unless on the evidence it was not reasonably possible for the
lower courts to come to the findings which they reached) ; AIR 1964 AP 226 (Unless the view of the
lower court is unreasonable or wholly unwarranted by material on record) ; 1959 Ker LT 945 : AIR
1960 Ker 119 (Unless a finding is arrived at by disregarding fundamental rules of evidence).
820. 34 Bom 378.
821. 31 Mad 133 (135). See also 157 IC 472 ; 1937 MWN 733 : AIR 1937 Mad 968 (Where it is
evident that the courts below have not really approached the case with either a clear appreciation
of the issue involved, or a clear understanding of the principles of criminal law, the High Court is
entitled to interfere) ; (1963) 1 MLJ 418 : (1963) MLJ (Cri) 266 (Where the lower court has
misunderstood the scope of enquiry under section 139-A, the High Court will set right the illegality
and will not feel bound by erroneous findings of fact arrived at by a wrong approach of the case) ;
(1945) AWR (HC) 298 (2) : AIR 1946 All 227 (Where the finding of fact is either perverse or has
been arrived at contrary to well established principles of law) ; AIR 1958 Raj 335 : 1958 Cr LJ 1537
(Where the findings of fact are perverse or are such as no reasonable man would have recorded on
the evidence produced in the case).
822. AIR 1925 Lah 42.
823. 1956 Cr LJ 1069 : AIR 1956 Bom 617.
824. Hrushikesh Das v. Dhanu Ghadel, 1992 Cr LJ 879 (Ori).
825. Ramesh Chandra v. State, 1972 Cr LJ 5 (SC).
826. 17 SLR 245 : AIR 1924 Sind 129.
827. 30 NLR 55 : AIR 1933 Nag 384 ; 20 Pat 898 : AIR 1942 Pat 183 ; 1963 (2) Cr LJ 541 (All)
(Finding of fact by Magistrate reasonable-High Court will not interfere), AIR 1960 Cal 519 (Question
whether witnesses are interested and on that ground unreliable is a pure question of fact).
828. 1956 Cr LJ 904 : AIR 1956 Mys 51.
829. 49 Cr LJ 283 : AIR 1948 Cal 186. So also a finding as to divorce : (1960) 1 MLJ 134 ; AIR 1960
Mad 179 ; 1960 Raj LW 100 (Do).
830. Pathumma v. Muhammad, 1986 Cr LJ 1070 (SC).
831. 9 Luck 651 : AIR 1934 Oudh 179 ; AIR 1949 All 616 : 50 Cr LJ 929 (Proceeding under section
147) : 1948 AMLJ 19 (Finding of non-existence of dispute likely to cause breach of peace in
proceeding under section 145).
832. AIR 1957 Mys 43.
833. 16 PLT 891 : AIR 1936 Pat 38. See also 18 PLT 872.
834. 6 Sau LR 512 : AIR 1955 Sau 19.
835. 62 Cal 749 : AIR 1935 Cal 316.
836. 62 Cal 749 : AIR 1935 Cal 316.
837. 37 IC 468.
838. 11 PLT 319 : AIR 1930 Pat 209 : AIR 1955 Tri 35 : 1955 Cr LJ 1636.
103/115
3/15/13
839. 8 SLR 199.

840. 81 IC 897 : AIR 1925 Nag 123.
841. 35 Cr LJ 849 : AIR 1934 Rang 42.
842. 14 Bom 115 (118).
843. Marindra Narayan Sen Gupta v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 1102 (Gau).
844. See 8 Bom 797 (199).
845. 124 PR (Cri) 1866 : 14 PR (Cri) 1868 ; 13 PR (Cri) 1867.
846. 7 PWR (Cri) 1915 : 16 Cr LJ 202.
847. AIR 1934 Rang 60 : 35 Cr LJ 808.
848. 18 PWR (Cri) 1914 : 15 Cr LJ 521. See also AIR 1933 Sind 171.
849. (1959) 2 MLJ 463 : AIR 1960 Mad 115.
850. 11 OWN 1035 : AIR 1934 Oudh 424.
851. AIR 1933 Sind 359 : 35 Cr LJ 206 ; AIR 1933 Sind 396 : 35 Cr LJ 270 ; 1960 Ker LT 753 : AIR
1961 Ker 8 (FB) (Identity of accused also not satisfactorily proved).
852. V. Selladurai v. Sridhar, 1996 Cr LJ 659 (Mad).
853. 1935 OWN 126 : AIR 1935 Oudh 241 ; (1961) 1 MLJ 379 (When record of trial is itself not
capable of sustaining conviction).
854. 12 PWR (Cri) 1913 : 19 IC 148. See also 10 CWN 446.
855. 13 PWR (Cri) 1909 : 11 Cr LJ 97.
856. 22 PWR (Cri) 1912 : 13 Cr LJ 555.
857. Brahmjit Singh v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 408 (Del).
858. Rachita Rout v. Basanta Kumar Rout, 1987 Cr LJ 655 (Ori).
859. 8 PWR (Cri) 1912 : 13 Cr LJ 463.
860. 99 IC 123 : AIR 1927 All 147.
861. 20 PWR (Cri) 1907 : 6 Cr LJ 263.
862. 21 PLR 1914 : 12 PWR (Cri) 1914.
863. 31 IC 337.
864. 1 PWR (Cri) 1916 : 32 IC 847.
865. Ibrahim Husen v. State, 1969 Cr LJ 739 (Goa).
866. 38 IC 997.
867. 28 PWR (Cri) 1912 : 13 Cr LJ 712 : 1939 OWN 265 : AIR 1939 Oudh 156.
868. 28 PWR (Cri) 1914 : 15 Cr LJ 591.
869. 6 LLJ 326 : AIR 1925 Lah 42.
870. 5 PWR (Cri) 1913 : 14 Cr LJ 320 : 43 PWR (Cri) 1913.
871. 34 Cr LJ 1046 : AIR 1933 Sind 171.
872. AIR 1929 Pat 112, following : 1960 Ker LT 1276 : AIR 1961 Ker 250.
873. 25 PWR (Cri) 1910 : 11 Cr LJ 425. In this case the chief court discussed the evidence,
reversed concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below, and acquitted the accused.
874. 21 MLJ 283.
104/115
3/15/13
875. 3 PWR (Cri) 1911 : 9 IC 232.

876. 37 Cr LJ 951 : AIR 1936 Oudh 401. See also 61 CLJ 583 : 39 CWN 1051.
877. AIR 1933 Bom 482 : 58 Bom 40.
878. AIR 1937 Pat 646 : AIR 1937 Pat 110 (Failure of justice due to some error in a matter of
principle) ; 8 Raj 663 : AIR 1931 Raj 94 (High Court should interfere only where it is urgently
demanded in the interests of public justice) ; 1940 OWN 757 : AIR 1941 Ori 7 ; 22 PLT 327 : AIR
1941 Pat 362 ; 17 Luck 663 : AIR 1942 Ori 318 (The chief court will interfere where there has been
miscarriage of justice) ; 1942 OWN 432 : AIR 1942 Oudh 443 ; ILR (1944) Nag 176 : AIR 1944 Nag
136 ; ILR (1944) Bom 302 : AIR 1944 Bom 107 (FB) ; (1945) 1 MLJ 183 : AIR 1945 Mad 240 ; 1948
ALJ 511 : AIR 1949 All 264 ; 1950 ALJ 329 : AIR 1950 All 42 ; AIR 1950 Ajmer 32 (2) and 35 (1) ; AIR
1956 Trip 2.
879. AIR 1936 Raj 247 : 37 Cr LJ 832. See also 23 NLR 40 ; 115 IC 169 : AIR 1929 Nag 87 ; 6 CPLR
154 ; 5 NLR 4 ; 33 CWN 576 ; AIR 1924 All 674.
880. State v. Mohinder Singh, 1983 Cr LJ 466 (P&H).
881. Jagabandhu Behera v. Dinabandhu Kabi, 1993 Cr LJ 2512 (Ori).
882. Ramaswami v. Muthu, 1976 Cr LJ 1504 (Mad).
883. Ravula Anantaiah v. Nimmagadda Kistaiah, 1972 Cr LJ 1693 (AP).
884. Ashok Kumar Goyal v. Manager, E. S. I. Corporation, 1988 Cr LJ 1084 (Mad).
885. 29 NLR 365 : AIR 1933 Nag 259.
886. AIR 1956 Bom 247.
887. Easin Ali v. Abdul Obdud, 1982 Cr LJ 1052 (Cal).
888. ILR (1948) All 222 : AIR 1948 All 339 ; A.N. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (4) Crimes 252
(Raj).
889. AIR 1927 Mad 298, following : AIR 1957 Mani 23 : 1957 Cr LJ 872 ; AIR 1956 Tri 2.
890. Sanku Sreedharan Kottukallil Veettil Konathadikara v. State, 1970 Cr LJ 688 (Ker).
891. Harnamshi B. Digwa v. Thacker Valji Kunverji, 1983 Cr LJ 604 (Guj).
892. Mustafa Sheikh v. Lalchand Sheikh, 1985 Cr LJ 1183 (Cal).
893. 1 Rang 604.
894. State v. Mathuri Mallik, 1979 Cr LJ 508 (Ori).
895. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (3) Crimes 161 (Bom) : 2000 Cr LJ
1566 (Bom).
896. See section 378.
897. See AIR 1937 Sind 100 : 38 Cr LJ 665.
898. 52 IC 788 (Defamation cases) : 43 Bom LR 737 : AIR 1941 Bom 410 (Do) : AIR 1954 Raj 249
(Do) ; AIR 1951 HP 25 (Offences punishable under sections 500, 497 and 498, I.P.C.) : 16 PLT 629 :
AIR 1935 Pat 474 (Cases under Child Marriage Restraint Act).
899. Sk. Abdul Karim v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 219 (Cal).
900. Gurshinder Singh v. Joga Singh, 2000 Cr LJ 2778 (SC).
901. 1951 SCJ 269 : AIR 1951 SC 196 ; AIR 1954 SC 266 : 1954 Cr LJ 724 ; AIR 1954 SC 584 : AIR
1955 Cr LJ 1299.
902. See AIR 1956 Assam 170 : 1956 Cr LJ 1283 ; 1960 Ker LT 1186 : (1961) MLJ (Cri) 126
(Revision against acquittal by first informant in case instituted on police report) ; 1961 Ker LT 362 :
1962 (1) Cr LJ 652 ; 1962 (1) Cr LJ 677 (Tri). See also AIR 1959 MP 75 ; AIR 1958 Pat 88 ; AIR 1958
Punj 228 ; 1960 Ker LT 777 ; AIR 1963 J&K 39 ; 67 CWN 1029 ; 1964 (2) Cr LJ 711 : AIR 1964 Pat
105/115
3/15/13
561.
903. 1963 (1) Cr LJ 8 : AIR 1962 SC 1788. This case was followed in 1964 (2) Cr LJ 74 (SC) ; Nand
Kishore Panigrahi v. Meyadhar Nayak, 1968 Cr LJ 333 (Ori) ; Ajib Jolly v. Chandramani Dalal, 1973 Cr
LJ 362 (Ori).
904. 1964 (2) Cr LJ 74 (SC).
905. Karali Bauri v. Subhas Das Musib, 1983 Cr LJ 1474 (Cal).
906. Wadilal Damodar Shah v. Joseph Raul Abhrakkal, 1973 Cr LJ 1245 (Bom).
907. Dalel Singh v. Jag Mohan Singh, 1981 Cr LJ 667 (Del).
908. (1951) SCJ 503 : (1951) 2 MLJ 282 : AIR 1951 SC 316, followed in AIR 1954 HP 4 : 1953 Cr LJ
1896 : AIR 1953 Pepsu 155 and 179 ; ILR (1954) Ori 193.
909. See 1963 (1) Cr LJ 8 (12) : AIR 1962 SC 1788.
910. 51 All 663.
911. 18 CWN 1244.
912. 24 CWN 415.
913. 31 NLR 261 : AIR 1936 Nag 40.
914. 1 All 139.
915. AIR 1956 All 267 : 1956 Cr LJ 470.
916. Tejamul Ali Lasker v. Abdul Rahman, 1984 Cr LJ 1262 (Gau).
917. AIR 1958 AP 571 : 1958 MLJ (Cri) 797.
918. Gurbaz Singh v. State, 1974 Cr LJ 426 (P&H).
919. 10 Cut LT 50.
920. 16 PR (Cri) 1884.
921. 3 Bur LJ 323 : AIR 1925 Raj 183. See also 8 Raj 663 : 1943 OWN 319 : AIR 1943 Oudh 451.
922. 7 LLJ 42 : AIR 1925 Lah 336 (2).
923. ILR (1937) Nag 163 : 38 Cr LJ 719 : AIR 1937 Nag 103.
924. In re, Subbi Reddy, 1984 Cr LJ 502 (AP).
925. 1934 All 846 ; 36 Cr LJ 490.
926. 1950 ALJ 329 : AIR 1950 All 42.
927. Surendran v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 1197 (Ker).
928. 1940 OWN 757 : AIR 1941 Oudh 7 ; 8 Rang 663 : AIR 1931 Rang 94.
929. 1948 ALJ 511 : AIR 1949 All 264.
930. 35 PLR 730. See also 121 IC 51 : 31 Cr LJ 194 ; AIR 1939 Pat 28 : 39 Cr LJ 968 (Misreading
evidence of a witness) ; AIR 1954 SC 266 (Jurisdiction of High Court is not ordinarily invoked or used
merely because lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence) ;
(1958) 2 Andh WR 365 : AIR 1958 AP 571 (The bar of conversion of an order of acquittal into one of
conviction, in effect, would mean an implied prohibition to impugn the correctness of inferences
drawn from the evidence or findings of fact arrived at by trial court on appreciation of evidence).
931. 95 IC 599 : 24 OC 4.
932. AIR 1927 Oudh 345 ; 8 OWN 341 : AIR 1931 Oudh 273 ; 10 OWN 345 : AIR 1933 Oudh 257 ; 10
Luck 192 ; AIR 1935 Ori 176 : 157 IC 74 : 36 Cr LJ 1090.
933. 64 Punj LR 1064 : 1963 (1) Cr LJ 469 : AIR 1963 Punj 170.
106/115
3/15/13
934. Suraya Ibrahim Shaikh v. Ibrahim Rahim Shaikh, 1996 Cr LJ 2415 (Bom).
935. 1942 NLJ 329.
936. State v. Mohan, 1968 Cr LJ 545 (Raj).
937. Kaptan Singh v. State of M.P., 1997 Cr LJ 2987 (SC) : 1997 (2) Crimes 52 (SC).
938. 9 OWN 319 : AIR 1932 Oudh 251 (1) : 33 Cr LJ 511 ; 1950 ALJ 329 : AIR 1962 SC 1788 (Where
trial court has no jurisdiction).
939. Jogendra Nath Biswas v. Nityanand Haldar, 1975 Cr LJ 1266 (Cal).
940. K. Mahadevan v. Y. Venkatesh, 1993 Cr LJ 2659 (AP).
941. 1 All 139 (FB) ; 23 NLR 298 : 1934 ALJ 541 : AIR 1934 All 190.
942. 18 PR (Cri) 1883 ; 8 PR (Cri) 1918 : AIR 1924 Lah 286 : AIR 1930 Lah 159 ; AIR 1938 Lah 739 ;
13 IC 389 : 13 Cr LJ 53.
943. 9 Bom LR 156 (158).
944. AIR 1950 HP 44, followed in AIR 1954 HP 61.
945. 18 PWR (Cri) 1915 : 16 Cr LJ 657 : 30 IC 641.
946. 23 ALJ 433.
947. 20 CWN 862 : 37 IC 519 : AIR 1949 Cal 658 : 51 Cr LJ 33 (The High Court will interfere where
to allow the case to stand would be to allow a very bad precedent). See also 2 LW 1244 : 32 IC
129.
948. 109 IC 362 : AIR 1928 Lah 844 (2).
949. 53 MLJ 529.
950. AIR 1926 All 368.
951. Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cr LJ 41 (SC).
952. 28 NLR 298 : 34 Cr LJ 145 : AIR 1933 Nag 36.
953. ILR (1947) Nag 899 : 1947 NLJ 569 : AIR 1948 Nag 243 ; AIR 1957 Manipur 23. See also ILR
(1954) 6 Assam 274 : AIR 1955 Assam 211 (Even an error of law does not make interference
obligatory in all casesection Where serious or substantial injustice is caused by an error of law, the
order may be interfered with) ; AIR 1959 Mys 54 : 1959 Cr LJ 344.
954. AIR 1937 Oudh 283 : 1937 OWN 281.
955. 1942 OWN 786 : AIR 1943 Oudh 157.
956. Karnail Singh Mian Singh v. Gurdev Singh Jagir Singh, 1966 Cr LJ 231 (Punj).
957. AIR 1950 All 653 : 51 Cr LJ 1167.
958. 18 PLT 227 : AIR 1937 Pat 110.
959. 1930 MWN 770.
960. Rabindra Behera v. Sridhar Samantaray, 1996 Cr LJ 832 (Ori).
961. ILR (1937) Nag 286 : AIR 1937 Nag 72.
962. 1957 Cr LJ 394 : AIR 1957 Tri 18.
963. 7 SLR 200 : 24 IC 961.
964. 71 IC 602.
965. 71 IC 248 (2) : 24 Cr LJ 120 (2) : AIR 1962 SC 1788.
966. S.K. Saifuddin Mondal v. State, 1983 Cr LJ 109 (Cal).
107/115
3/15/13
967. 34 PLR 181 : AIR 1933 Lah 323 : 34 Cr LJ 718.

968. 7 Rang 538.
969. AIR 1925 Pat 165 : 25 Cr LJ 1266.
970. See 1 PLJ 1264 ; 5 Pat 25 (30).
971. 12 ALJ 285.
972. 27 Cr LJ 226.
973. 35 Cr LJ 1289 : AIR 1934 All 714.
974. 39 IC 487 : 18 Cr LJ 519.
975. 26 OC 282. See also ILR (1939) Kant 385 : AIR 1939 Sind 75; 1963 Raj LW 48 (Case under
section 182, I.P.C., registered on report of police officer as public servant-Acquittal on default in
appearance of police officer not in accordance with law).
976. 98 IC 607 : AIR 1927 Mad 130. But see infra.
977. 1940 NLJ 399 : AIR 1940 Nag 357.
978. 60 IC 1000.
979. 25 CWN 609.
980. 53 Cal 471.
981. 1940 OWN 1257 : AIR 1941 Oudh 182 : 17 Luck 663 : AIR 1942 Oudh 318.
982. Bhima Padhan v. Parmanand Sethi, 1972 Cr LJ 820 (Ori).
983. AIR 1950 Cut 88.
984. M. Narayanan v. Chellan Kunhambu, 1988 Cr LJ 1375 (Ker), setting aside order of acquittal.
985. Sunil Kumar Ghosh v. Ajit Kumar Das, 1969 Cr LJ 1234 (Cal).
986. 1939 Cr LJ 9, 8 : 67 CLJ 571 : AIR 1938 Cal 613 ; 1938 RLR 121 ; 1943 PWN 12 ; AIR 1952 All
461 ; AIR 1952 Mys 123 ; 1952 ALJ 61.
987. Satyendra Nath Datta v. Ram Narain, 1975 Cr LJ 577 (SC).
988. 1938 Rang LR 121 : AIR 1938 Rang 193 : 39 Cr LJ 623.
989. 1954 Cr LJ 13 : AIR 1954 Cal 48. See also AIR 1954 Cal 361.
990. 1937 ALJ 143 : AIR 1937 All 240. See also 1938 RLR 121 ; ILR (1941) Lah 423 : AIR 1941 Lah
214 ; Per Iqbal Ahmed, C.J., in 1944 ALJ 203 : 1944 All 137 (FB) ; 1961 Ker LT 1088 : 1962 (2) Cr LJ
427.
991. ILR (1942) Lah 125 : AIR 1942 Lah 70 (FB).
992. AIR 1950 Lah 165 : Pak LR (1950) Lah 381.
993. AIR 1950 All 266 : 51 Cr LJ 505. This case was not followed in AIR 1952 All 461 : 1952 Cr LJ
804 which held that in such a revision even a retrial could be ordered though care had to be taken
not to express an opinion on the merits.
994. 28 OC 384 : AIR 1925 Oudh 321.
995. Kalandi Charan Pani v. Ganesh Dalal, 1992 Cr LJ 281 (Ori), where order of acquittal set aside
and retrial ordered.
996. 1964 (2) Cr LJ 711 : AIR 1964 Pat 561.
997. Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh, 1981 Cr LJ 1016 (SC).
998. Kunchathy Sadasivan v. Vasu Asan Rajagopalan, 1971 Cr LJ 159 (Ker).
999. AIR 1951 HP 25.
108/115
3/15/13
1000. AIR 1964 Pat 561.

1001. 1961 (1) Cr LJ 441 : AIR 1961 Tri 12 ; 1960 Cr LJ 1593 (1) : AIR 1960 Guj 48.
1002. (1951) 2 MLJ 662.
1003. 1963 Cr LJ 542 (Punj).
1004. AIR 1956 Tri 2.
1005. 36 LW 623 : 33 Cr LJ 825.
1006. 1884 AWN 293. See also 1934 Sind 78 (1).
1007. 29 Cal 382 : 23 WR (Cri) 30.
1008. 44 IC 326 : 4 PWR (Cri) 1918. See also 18 IC 688.
1009. 1905 AWN 143. But see 15 ALJ 469 : 39 All 466 contra.
1010. Nadeem Mian v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 1329 (AP).
1011. 1923 Mad 484 (2) : 17 LW 357 : 44 MLJ 866.
1012. State v. Jagatram Sahu, 1973 Cr LJ 295 (Ori).
1013. Municipal Commissioner v. M. Chinnammal, 1966 Cr LJ 1461 (Mad).
1014. 99 IC 1030 : AIR 1927 Lah 161.
1015. Sukedeb Barik v. Panchan Barik, 1967 Cr LJ 228 (Ori) ; 1959 ALJ 126 : 1959 Cr LJ 1380 : AIR
1959 All 751.
1016. Municipal Commissioner v. S. Annapakkiyam, 1967 Cr LJ 898 (Mad).
1017. Sahodari Sonar v. Kailash Ram Teli, 1968 Cr LJ 511 (Mani).
1018. Sankal Chand Vachhaji v. Khengaram Vardhaji, 1969 Cr LJ 1501 (Guj).
1019. Arvinda Mohan Sinha v. Prohlad Chandra Samanta, 1970 Cr LJ 1341 (Cal) ; State v.
Neelakanta Damodaran, 1974 Cr LJ 1107 (Ker) ; State v. Ramjilal Devi Sahai, 1972 Cr LJ 796 (P&H) ;
State v. Raghbir Singh, 1972 Cr LJ 1580 (P&H).
1020. Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State, 1973 Cr LJ 1368 (Cal).
1021. Sankha Ram Sahu v. Bara Takbi, 1976 Cr LJ 1952 (Gau).
1022. Harikrushna Purohit v. Satyabadi Purohit, 1990 Cr LJ 1595 (Ori).
1023. 8 Bom LR 851 (852). See also 1934 Sind 78 (1) ; 35 Cr LJ 120 ; ILR (1937) Bom 263 : 39 Bom
LR 82 : 38 Cr LJ 606 : Rat 977 ; 14 SLR 173 ; AIR 1933 Raj 329 ; 35 Cr LJ 116 ; AIR 1935 Raj 393 :
37 Cr LJ 94 ; ILR (1941) 1 Cal 417 ; AIR 1942 Oudh 439 : 43 Cr LJ 668.
1024. 55 PLR 249 ; AIR 1953 Punj 222.
1025. B.K. Bhowmick v. Princess Confectionery, 1979 Cr LJ 1473 (Cal).
1026. AIR 1929 Pat 640 : AIR 1942 Oudh 439 : 1943 Cr LJ 668 (Where there has been no appeal
under section 476-B, objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint could
not be raised in revision against the conviction). Where the accused on a trial by a Presidency
Magistrate was sentenced to a fine of more than Rs. 200, no revision can be entertained against
the sentence in view of section 401(4) as the sentence was appealable under section 374, Cr.P.C. :
67 Cal WN 497.
1027. 1959 ALJ 126 : 1959 Cr LJ 1380 : AIR 1959 All 751.
1028. See AIR 1958 Cal 615 : 1958 Cr LJ 1388.
1029. Ratan Singh v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 673 (MP).
1030. Arun Sahu v. Haridas Arora, 1984 Cr LJ 1028 (Cal).
109/115
3/15/13
1031. 64 Pun LR 1064 : 1963 (1) Cr LJ 469 : AIR 1963 Punj 170.
1032. Sapan Laingam Singh v. Kakyengpaibam Amuyaima Singh, 1971 Cr LJ 404 (Mani).
1033. See 5 CWN 330 (331) ; 14 PWR (Cri) 1909 : 41 Cal 980 ; 32 IC 833 : 7 PWR (Cri) 1916.
1034. 32 PLR 71 : AIR 1931 Lah 145 ; AIR 1959 Mys 54 : 1959 Cr LJ 344. See also AIR 1954 Sau
129 : 1954 Cr LJ 1553 (Such powers should be exercised in rare cases of palpable or gross errors
requiring interference in the interests of justice).
1035. Rahasa Raul v. Biranchi Narayan Pradhan, 1973 Cr LJ 1743 (Ori).
1036. Eknath Shankarrao Mukkarwar v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 964 (SC).
1037. 108 IC 81 : AIR 1928 Pat 326. See also 31 CLJ 305 ; 4 PLJ 435 ; AIR 1931 Lah 145 ; 58 Cal
902 : 36 PLR 121 : AIR 1934 Lah 346.
1038. 107 IC 529 : AIR 1928 Pat 249.
1039. 20 LW 914 : AIR 1925 Mad 239.
1040. 17 SLR 245.
1041. 1933 ALJ 1059 : AIR 1933 All 678 (FB). But see AIR 1933 Cal 361 : 34 Cr LJ 814, where the
High Court stated that though it would interfere and reduce a sentence in revision even if the
convicted person fails to exercise his right of appeal and does not himself move the court in
revision, and the application is made by a third party, where the convicted person has insuperable
difficulties in agitating grievances in the manner provided by law.
1042. 144 IC 691 (2).
1043. AIR 1930 Oudh 497. See also 33 PLR 911 : AIR 1932 Lah 559 ; 33 PLR 384 : AIR 1932 Lah 364
: 34 PLR 32 : AIR 1932 Lah 613 : 56 All 158 : AIR 1933 All 678 (FB) (The court can receive
information or knowledge from a third party and act upon it of its own accord).
1044. 56 All 158 : 1933 ALJ 1059 : 1933 All 678 (FB).
1045. 8 SLR 229 ; followed in 18 SLR 262.
1046. 1959 ALJ 260 : 1959 Cr LJ 800 : AIR 1959 All 413.
1047. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (Delhi) v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 Cr LJ 3242
(Del).
1048. ILR (1947) 1 Cal 409.
1049. See 6 All 622 (FB).
1050. Asst. Collector of Customs v. Harbans Lal Sharaf, 1980 Cr LJ 618 (Del).
1051. AIR 1952 MB 1 (FB).
1052. 10 Luck 664 : AIR 1935 Oudh 239 ; AIR 1935 All 38 : 37 Cr LJ 49 (The High Court can
enhance such sentence up to the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the offence, even
though it may exceed the sentence that can be passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge). To the
same effect is the ruling in 1958 SCJ 359 ; AIR 1958 SC 127 : 1958 Cr LJ 268.
1053. AIR 1940 Pesh 49 : 42 Cr LJ 254 ; AIR 1951 Pepsu 73 ; AIR 1961 Ker 175.
1054. 165 IC 933 : AIR 1936 Sind 233.
1055. Nadir Khan v. State, 1976 Cr LJ 1721 (SC).
1056. State v. Babaji Sahoo, 1977 Cr LJ 1591 (Ori).
1057. 61 Cal 155 : AIR 1933 Cal 870.
1058. 24 Pat 715 : AIR 1946 Pat 239.
1059. 7 PR (Cri) 1889 ; 21 IC 471 ; 35 PLR 527 : AIR 1934 Lah 613 ; 44 PLR 167 ; 1941 Rang LR 65
: AIR 1941 Raj 135 (Especially when they do not themselves institute the proceedings which bring
110/115
3/15/13
their cases to the notice of High Court).

1060. AIR 1928 Lah 961. See also 28 Bom LR 300 ; AIR 1927 Lah 531 ; AIR 1932 Lah 199 ; AIR 1928
Pat 201 ; AIR 1945 Oudh 215 : 47 Cr LJ 2 (Application for enhancement of sentence filed when
sentence was about to expire) ; AIR 1956 Bom 559 : 1956 Cr LJ 984 ; AIR 1963 Guj 222 : 1963 (2)
Cr LJ 262 (1).
1061. 48 Bom 358, followed in 5 Bur LJ 1 : AIR 1926 Raj 106. See also 16 Bom LR 202 ; 108 IC 162.
1062. AIR 1933 Oudh 421 : 10 OWN 903.
1063. 14 Luck 401 : AIR 1939 Oudh 54.
1064. 39 PLR 659 : AIR 1938 Lah 116.
1065. 105 IC 820 : AIR 1928 Nag 58, following 16 Bom LR 202 ; ILR (1942) Nag 208 : AIR 1940 Nag
249 (Only in a very extraordinary case the High Court would enhance a sentence on the application
of a complainant which the Government opposes).
1066. Per Buckland, J., in 33 CWN 605 ; ILR (1942) Nag 277 ; AIR 1940 Nag 276. See also 55 Cal
964 (967) ; 114 IC 442 : AIR 1929 Lah 531 ; 8 Raj 578 : AIR 1931 Rang 52 (Complainant applied for
enhancement).
1067. AIR 1928 All 419 ; ILR (1941) All 465 : AIR 1941 All 309.
1068. AIR 1928 All 417 (2).
1069. 53 All 223 : AIR 1931 All 13 distinguishing 48 Bom 358.
1070. ILR (1949) All 484 : AIR 1949 All 213.
1071. Per Ghose, J., in 56 Cal 964.
1072. See 33 CWN 605 (608).
1073. 108 IC 567 : AIR 1928 All 287.
1074. 16 Bom LR 203.
1075. 105 IC 820 : AIR 1928 Nag 58 ; AIR 1959 Pat 222.
1076. 17 SLR 268 : AIR 1925 Sind 188. See also 32 PLR 273.
1077. Narain Prasad v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 1445 (Raj).
1078. 7 PR (Cri) 1889 ; AIR 1931 Lah 132 : 32 Cr LJ 943 ; 42 PLR 150 ; 33 PLR 49 : AIR 1932 Lah
199 : ILR (1945) Kant 409 : AIR 1946 Sind 62 : 1956 SCJ 38 : AIR 1955 SC 778 ; AIR 1955 MB 80 ;
1956 Andh WR 788.
1079. 108 IC 162 : AIR 1928 Lah 507. See also 10 SLR 207 : AIR 1934 Lah 975 : 36 PLR 184 : 36 Cr
LJ 681 : AIR 1934 Sind 157 : 36 Cr LJ 218 ; 39 PLR 11.
1080. State v. Shivanna, 1972 Cr LJ 1146 (Mys).
1081. Ramkrishna Panicker v. State, 1971 Cr LJ 57 (Ker).
1082. State v. Joseph Anthony Pareira, 1972 Cr LJ 274 (Bom).
1083. 1964 (2) Cr LJ 34 : AIR 1964 Ker 185.
1084. 12 OLJ 421 : AIR 1925 Oudh 723. See also 3 Bur LJ 155 : 1924 Pat 373 ; 110 IC 796 ; 107 IC
757 (1) ; 1934 Lah 89 ; 35 Cr LJ 1453 ; 36 Bom LR 954 : AIR 1934 Bom 471 ; ILR (1938) Lah 347 :
AIR 1938 Lah 260 ; 33 PLR 49 ; AIR 1932 Lah 199 ; 7 PR (Cri) 1889 ; 229 IC 172 : 48 Cr LJ 298 (Lah)
: AIR 1961 Ker 175 ; 1962 (2) Cr LJ 710 (Mys).
1085. 58 Mad 707 : AIR 1935 Mad 198 : 68 MLJ 176.
1086. 110 IC 796 : AIR 1934 Nag 117 (1) : 35 Cr LJ 760 ; 9 CPLR (Cri) 4 ; AIR 1937 Lah 215 : 1938
Cr LJ 720 ; ILR (1938) Lah 347 : AIR 1938 Lah 260 ; 44 PLR 167 ; AIR 1951 Pepsu 73 ; AIR 1942
Rang 49 : 43 Cr LJ 525 (The fact that sentence is lenient is not sufficient) ; ILR (1953) Cut 428 :
AIR 1954 Orissa 49 (Where a deterrent sentence is called for) ; AIR 1956 Ajmer 2 ; 1958 Andh LT
111/115
3/15/13
920 ; AIR 1961 Kerala 175 : 1961 Ker LT 144 ; 1961 Ker LT 362 : 1962 (1) Cr LJ 652 ; 1962 (2) Cr LJ
710 (Mys) ; State v. Raghubir Das, 1970 Cr LJ 1051 (Del).
1087. Subbayyan Muthukomaran v. State, 1968 Cr LJ 1554 (Ker).
1088. Piyarey Lal v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 1934 (All).
1089. State v. Rangaswami, 1981 Cr LJ 694 (Mad).
1090. Thippeswamy v. State, 1983 Cr LJ 1271 (SC).
1091. 1960 ALJ 721.
1092. 29 Bom LR 996.
1093. 42 Bom LR 745.
1094. 38 Cr LJ 720 : AIR 1937 Lah 215.
1095. 118 IC 540 : AIR 1929 Lah 102. See also 29 Punj WR (Cri) 1913 : 21 IC 471 ; 4 SLR 86 : 8 IC
218.
1096. 14 PLT 71 : AIR 1933 Pat 179 (1) ; 55 PLR 172 : AIR 1953 Punj 201. See also 1961 BLJR 541
(Conviction for theft).
1097. 16 Lah 1131 : AIR 1935 Lah 337.
1098. 1937 MWN 1241 ; 30 NLR 9 : AIR 1933 Nag 307.
1099. AIR 1956 Bom 231 ; AIR 1953 Trav Co. 561 : 1953 Cr LJ 1803 (The mere fact that Magistrate
trying the case might have imposed the capital sentence is not a sufficient reason for
enhancement).
1100. (1940) 2 MLJ 895.
1101. 1953 Cr LJ 1803 : AIR 1953 TC 561 ; AIR 1954 SC 714 (Revision by complainant-Enhancement
of sentence to death is within power of High Court).
1102. AIR 1953 Raj 17 : 1953 Cr LJ 301.
1103. 57 Bom LR 777 : AIR 1955 Bom 373, following 1953 SCJ 532
1104. State v. Gourishankar Kawadu Shende, 1966 Cr LJ 875 (Bom).
1105. 1937 Rang LR 169 : AIR 1937 Rang 254 ; AIR 1939 Rang 225 : 40 Cr LJ 725.
1106. 36 Bom LR 1126 : AIR 1935 Bom 37.
1107. 27 PR (Cri) 1919 : 52 IC 604. See also 32 Cr LJ 56 : AIR 1930 Lah 338 (It is doubtful whether
the discretionary power under section 401(1) can be exercised in a case in which the sentence is
manifestly illegal). But see ILR (1949) All 484 : AIR 1949 All 213 (Where the sentence of fine is illegal
and wholly inadequate the court can in revision enhance the sentence).
1108. 24 ALJ 228.
1109. See 55 Cal 417. Where on a reference by a District Magistrate the High Court set aside an
order of the trial Magistrate under section 360(3) and sentenced the accused to imprisonment.
1110. See (1960) SCJ 195 : 1960 Cr LJ 177 : AIR 1960 SC 154.
1111. 35 CWN 184 : AIR 1931 Cal 450.
1112. Bikash Ch. Mondal v. Sausanta Mondal, 1984 Cr LJ 1191 (Cal).
1113. Rat 179 and 634.
1114. 22 CWN 168.
1115. 47 Mad 428. See also 85 IC 383 : AIR 1925 Oudh 476.
1116. 1927 Cal 702 : 55 Cal 417.
112/115
3/15/13
1117. 61 Cal 6 : 37 CWN 1122.

1118. 62 Cal 952.
1119. AIR 1948 Lah 47 : 49 PLR 100.
1120. 1959 ALJ 300 : 1959 Cr LJ 803 : AIR 1959 All 421.
1121. Abdul Kadir v. Md. Mainuddin Ahmed, 1993 Cr LJ 557 (Gau).
1122. 2 CWN 81 (86).
1123. 23 Cal 347.
1124. 42 Cr LJ 124 : AIR 1925 Cal 1182.
1125. 27 Cal 820.
1126. 42 All 646.
1127. 1951 ALJ 216.
1128. 31 Cal 710.
1129. 1958 Cr LJ 316 : ILR (1957) 2 All 147 : AIR 1958 All 198 ; AIR 1920 All 268 : 1945 ALJ 45 :
AIR 1945 All 98. See also AIR 1940 All 426, cited under section 403, infra.
1130. 55 CWN 160.
1131. 4 Cal 20 : 3 CLR 93.
1132. 231 IC 398 : 48 Cr LJ 785.
1133. 7 CWN 859 (860).
1134. 7 CLJ 238 : 7 Cr LJ 312.
1135. ILR (1946) Kant 437 : AIR 1947 Sind 66.
1136. 42 Bom LR 481 : AIR 1940 Bom 283.
1137. 11 Pat 143 : AIR 1931 Pat 379.
1138. 40 Mad 976 (982).
1139. 69 IC 638 : AIR 1924 Lah 310, following 10 Cr LJ 80. Contra.
1140. 10 Bom 176 ; 7 All 672.
1141. 1956 BLJR 351 : 1957 Cr LJ 82 : 35 Pat 556 : AIR 1957 Pat 33.
1142. 23 MLJ 371 (372) ; (1964) 1 MLJ 362 (There is no inherent power in High Court to alter or
review its own judgment).
1143. 1915 MWN 786 : 16 Cr LJ 697 : 30 IC 745.
1144. AIR 1949 Mad 154 : (1948) 1 MLJ 406 ; 1958 Andh LT 227.
1145. 44 MLJ 27, following 23 MLJ 371.
1146. See also under section 369 and section 482.
1147. 22 Pat LT 976 : AIR 1942 Pat 150.
1148. S. Bhupinder Singh Makkar v. Narinder Kaur, 1990 Cr LJ 2265 (Del).
1149. 1943 PWN 54 ; 1951 ALJ 489. See also AIR 1952 Tri 5.
1150. 1962 (2) Cr LJ 655 (Cal). See also Notes under section 403, infra.
1151. O.P. Singhi v. State of Sikkim, 1978 Cr LJ 1650 (Sikkim).
1152. 8 Pat 468. See also 146 IC 551 (2) ; AIR 1933 Pat 601 (2) ; 15 PLT 569 ; 36 Cr LJ 97 (1) ;
AIR 1940 Pat 135 : 41 Cr LJ 171 ; AIR 1939 Pat 320 : 40 Cr LJ 196.
113/115
3/15/13
1153. See 43 Cal 1029 ; 25 CLJ 564. See also 5 SLR 265, cited under section 397, supra.
1154. 7 OWN 663 : AIR 1930 Oudh 401 ; 7 Luck 699 : AIR 1931 Oudh 242.
1155. AIR 1926 All 577.
1156. 25 ALJ 44 : AIR 1926 All 767.
1157. (1958) MLJ (Cri) 625 : (1958) MLJ 177 (An application for excusing delay in filing a revision
case against the acquittal of the accused may be disposed of without giving notice to the
accused).
1158. ILR (1953) TC 1161 : AIR 1954 TC 248 ; AIR 1954 Ajmer 29 : 1954 Cr LJ 564.
1159. 22 Pat LT 976 : AIR 1942 Pat 150 ; 1945 PWN 317 : AIR 1946 Pat 104 ; AIR 1961 Pat 247 :
1961 (1) Cr LJ 829. (The mere admission of an application filed beyond 60 days indicates that the
delay, if any, must have been condoned by the Bench which admitted it). See also AIR 1955 All 694
(No limitation for action under sections 399 and 401).
1160. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Girdharilal Sapuru, AIR 1981 SC 1169.
1161. 1907 AWN 204 ; ILR (1950) Nag 866 : 1950 NLJ 533 ; AIR 1954 Cal 27 : 1953 Cr LJ 1874.
1162. 27 All 468 (469) ; 1 PLJ 165.
1163. 5 SLR 265 : 13 Cr LJ 531.
1164. 8 All 514.
1165. AIR 1933 Cal 647 (2) : 35 Cr LJ 29.
1166. 195 IC 14 : 14 RS 4 : 42 Cr LJ 645 : AIR 1941 Sind 97.
1167. AIR 1951 HP 59 : 52 Cr LJ 1078, followed in AIR 1952 HP 74 : 1952 Cr LJ 1712. See AIR 1954
Sau 62 (Reference for enhancement of sentence after a lapse of time-Delay due to conduct of
accused-Delay held no excuse why sentence should not be enhanced).
1168. Sakhichand Sahu v. Ishwar Dayal Sahu, 1967 Cr LJ 1555 (Pat).
1169. State of Kerala v. Sebastian, 1983 Cr LJ 416 (Ker).
1170. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v. Murari Lal, 1984 Cr LJ 554 (Del).
1171. Santa Debi v. Lakhanlal Singh, 1968 Cr LJ 1114 (Pat).
1172. Narandas Tolaram v. Bhagsingh Kripalsingh Khalsa, 1968 Cr LJ 1136 (Guj).
1173. Krishna Kumari v. Sunder Dass, 1968 Cr LJ 988 (Del).
1174. Sajjan Kumar v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 623 (Del).
114/115
3/15/13
P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Code of Criminal Procedure, Seventh Edition

Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Disclaimer :
The vie ws and com m e nts e x pre sse d in the pre se nt cate gory are those of the Author. The se should not be tak e n to
re fle ct the vie ws of the organisation. Manupatra Inform ation Solutions Pvt. Ltd. e x pre ssly disclaim s all re sponsibility
for any loss, injury, liability or dam age of any k ind re sulting from and arising out of, or any way re late d to the
C onte nt.
115/115

Anuj

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anuj

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anuj

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/15/13

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Magistrate exercised his discretion properly in disallowing an

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

reason that the petitioner's application is barred by time.203

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

an order is open to challenge to the High Court by way of revision.272

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

witnesses without sufficient cause is a good ground for revision.456

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

(ii) "Opportunity of being heard".-Mere appointment of an amicus curiae to argue on behalf of

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

24. Interference with pending proceedings

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy