Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appeal and Revision
Appeal and Revision
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank my teacher Dr. MOHAMMAD ASAD MALIK and my PARENTS
for providing me with invaluable support and guidance which led to the
completion and conception of this project.
3
SYNOPSIS
No Right of Appeal
Form of Appeal
APPEAL
INTRODUCTION
The term “appeal” has not been defined in the code. According to the dictionary meaning, an
appeal is a complaint or grievance to a superior court for reconsideration or review of a decision,
verdict or sentence of a lower court1. It has been said that every human being is fallible and a
judge is not an exception. It is thus possible that even a judge may err or commit mistake and his
decision may be wrong or faulty. Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees life and
liberty to every citizen, small or big, rich or poor, as one of the Fundamental Rights. It is
therefore, necessary that a person aggrieved by an order of the court of the first instance may be
able to challenge it by preferring an appeal. An appeal is a method of correction of manly error
or solution of human frailty.
1
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (4TH edn.), p.124
5
A right of Appeal is not a natural or inherent right. It is a statutory right and must be governed by
the statute which grants it2.
SECTION 372
Provides, no appeal lies except otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time
being in force. Under Articles 132, 134 and 136 of the Constitution of India, it may be possible
to present an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal passed by the High
Court.
The appeal lies to Court of Session, except, of course, in cases where under sub-s. (2) Or (4) of
S. 122, the proceedings are already laid before the Session Judge.
Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than
seven years [has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the
same trial]; may appeal to the High Court
Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,
convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge
or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class,
sentenced under section 325, or
in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under
section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.
2
Akalu v. Ram Deo, AIR 1973 SC 2145
6
While disposing of appeals from the sentences of the Sessions Court under this Section, the High
Court should specify the reasons for rejection of appeal and should not reject it summarily. This
will enable the Supreme Court to know the view of the High Court, in case the appellant moves
the Supreme Court in appeal. For computing the sentence of imprisonment for seven years for
the purpose of ascertaining the appellate forum under Section 374 (2), the sentence in default of
payment of a fine is not to be added to the substantive sentence of imprisonment.
An appeal from an order of acquittal must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by
Article 114 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. For the extension of the period of
limitation, and for exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation, Sections 5 and 12 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 would be useful.
NO RIGHT OF APPEAL
Section 375 and 376 bar appeals in certain cases, though a provision of Revision is
maintainable3.
Where a High Court passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months or fine
not exceeding one thousand rupees or both;
Where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate passes a sentence of
imprisonment not exceeding three months or fine not exceeding two hundred rupees or
both;
Where a Magistrate of the First Class passes a sentence of fine not exceeding one
hundred rupees; or
Where in a summary case, a Magistrate passes a sentence of fine not exceeding two
hundred rupees.
3
Appeal (crl.) 320 of 2001
7
Section 377 confers right on the Government to file an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence
awarded by any court other than a High court. If the sentence appears to be manifestly
inadequate resulting in failure of justice, the appellate court can interfere with it and can enhance
the sentence. But at the same time, the high court can also exercise its revisional jurisdiction, Suo
motto call for the record and enhance the sentence in appropriate cases after giving an
opportunity to the accused4.The appellate court must pass a speaking order for enhancing the
sentence. A bold statement that the ends of justice demanded enhancement of sentence was held
insufficient by courts.
An appeal under Section 377 must be filed by the State within a period of 60 days and the
contention of the State that it was under a mistaken belief that period of limitation is ninety days
would be no excuse for condonation of the delay.
Under Articles 132, 134 and 136 of the Constitution of India, it may be possible to present an
appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court5.
An appeal from an order of acquittal must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by
Article 114 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. For the extension of the period of
limitation, and for exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation, Sections 5 and 12 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 would be useful.
Appeal against an order of acquittal is an extraordinary remedy. In exercising this power, the
High Court should give proper weight and consideration to “Very substantial and compelling
reasons”.
The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;
4
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 267
5
AIR 1963 SC 200
8
The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the
trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached – one that leads to acquittal, the other to
conviction – the High Court’s or appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.
1. An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsiders the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the
exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
3. Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient
grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseology are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to
emphasize reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
4. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available
to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall
be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
6
(2007) 4 SCC 415
9
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and
convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a
term of ten years or more, he may appeal to the Supreme Court.
An appeal to would lie to the Supreme Court as a matter of right when High Court, on appeal,
In other cases, appeal can be filed, if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal
to the Supreme Court. Only grave injustice manifest on record can induce the Supreme Court to
interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt of Courts below. The Court would be slow in
reversing the finding entered by the High Court unless there is a perverse and erroneous
appreciation of evidence. If the High Court, for acquitting the accused has given certain tenable
reasons, the Supreme Court would not be justified in interfering with such acquittal 9. The word
“acquittal” doesn’t mean that the trial must have ended in a complete acquittal but would also
include the case where an accused has been acquitted of the charge of murder and has been
convicted of a lesser offense10.
7
AIR 1964 SC 286
8
Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 891.
9
Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel, (2004) 10 SCC 583.
10
Tarachand Damu v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR 130.
10
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, when more persons than one are convicted
in one trial, and an appealable judgment or order has been passed in respect of any of such
person, all or any of the persons convicted at such trial shall have a right of appeal.
FORM OF APPEAL
Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his
pleader, and every such petition shall (unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs)
be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against. A copy of the judgment or
order means a certified copy. The court has, however, discretion to dispense with the copy of the
judgment11.
Where a convict is in jail and intends to challenge his conviction, he can file an appeal from jail
by presenting it to the officer in charge of the jail. It is the duty of the jail officer to forward such
appeal to an appropriate court. No Jail Appeal can be dismissed without affording the reasonable
opportunity to the appellate court of being heard.
If upon examining the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment received under section
382 or section 383, the Appellate Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for
interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily.
The Appellate court’s power to dismiss an appeal must be exercised sparingly and with
great circumspection. The Apex court has dealt with cases where the summary dismissal
11
State of U.P. v. Tobit, AIR 1958 SC 414
11
of criminal appeal is permissible. Even if the records of the case are destroyed or is not
available, it would justify acquittal. Bolin v. Jagdish12& State v. Abhai Roy13
SECTION 385: Procedure for hearing of the appeal which has been admitted and not
dismissed summarily under Section 384.
The section lays down the procedure for hearing of the appeal which has been admitted and not
dismissed summarily under Section 384.
An order of the High Court setting aside the acquittal of the accused in appeal without notice
having been sent to the accused was held to be illegal. The accused must be heard and his
appearance must be ensured while disposing of the appeal.
Where the appeal is not dismissed summarily under Section 384, the Appellate Court is bound to
call for the record if such record has not already been sent by the Court and then give a hearing
to the parties However, the Court may dispose of the appeal even without asking for the record
where the appeal is only as to the legality of the sentence.
SECTION 386 Of the Code specifies powers of the appellate court. It provides that after
persuing the record and after hearing the parties, the court may dismiss the appeal, allow the
appeal or pass any other order that may appear to it be just and proper.
It includes appeal –
Against Acquittal
Against conviction
For enhancement of sentence
From other orders
12
(2005) AIR 2005 SC 1872
13
(2004)4 SCC 6
12
Clause (d) of section 386 applies to all orders other than that of conviction, or of acquittal, or for
enhancement of sentence. The power which the appellate court possess is of alteration or reversal
of the order of the lower court14. According to Section 386(e) of the Code, the appellate Court
may make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper.
REVISION
INTRODUCTION
Revision is the act of examining again in order to remove any defect or grant relief against
irregular or improper exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction by a lower court. Revision is like
re-working and re-writing. Revision, meaning "to see again," takes place during the entire
writing process as we change words, rewrite sentences, and shift paragraphs from one location to
another in our essay. Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful
examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving.
14
Gul Zaman v. Emperor AIR 1943 Pes 6.
15
(in short Cr.PC)
13
The object of the revision is 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 undeserved hardship to individuals.
The purpose of revision is to enable the revision court to satisfy itself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity
of any proceedings of the inferior criminal court.
Under Section 397(1) of the Cr.PC, the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and
examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his
local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any
Proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the
execution of any Sentence order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be
released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Under Section 398 Cr.PC, the revision Court may make an order for further inquiry. Further
inquiry entails supplemental inquiry upon fresh evidence. The power under Section 398, Cr.PC is
not co-extensive with Section 397, Cr.PC but extends far wider as the record can ‘otherwise’ be
examined by the revision Court without recourse to Section 397, Cr.PC.
Section 399, Cr.PC deals with Sessions Judge’s power of revision. Under sub section (1), the
Sessions Judge, in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself
under Section 397(1), may exercise all or any of the powers which are exercisable by the High
Court under Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
14
Section 401(1) of the Cr.PC reads as follows: - In the case of any proceeding the record of which
has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in
its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389,
390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court
of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided
by Section 392.
16
The Allahabad High Court in Om Pratap Singh vs. State has observed: - the revisional power
of this Court under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.PC is a kind of supervisory jurisdiction in order to
prevent miscarriage of justice arising from the mis-conception of law or irregularity of procedure
committed by the subordinate Courts. These two Sections do not confer unfettered jurisdiction
on this Court for reappraisal of evidence. In fact, the revisional power of this Court is to see that
justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence and the
subordinate Courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their powers vested in them under
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
High Court in a revision is empowered to interfere with an order of acquittal and direct fresh
trail. While High Court sitting in appeal under Section 386 of the code, can convert finding of
acquittal into one conviction, Section 401, subsection (3) debars conversion of acquittal into
conviction. High Court, however, would not disturb a finding of fact unless it appears that trail
court shut out any evidence, or overlooked any material evidence or admitted inadmissible
evidence or where there has been manifest error on a point of fact.
(ii) Where trail court has wrongly shut out evidence which prosecution sought to produce;
(iv) Where acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence which is invalid under law;
(v) Where the appellate court has wrongly held evidence admitted by trail court as inadmissible.
16
1995 Cr LJ 3887
15
In State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh and Others 17, the Supreme Court
has held: - ‘in exercise of revisional power High Court cannot undertake in-depth and minute re-
examination of entire evidence and upset concurrent findings of trail court and appellate court.'
Where accused was acquitted without considering material evidence with inconsistent and faulty
reasoning and probative value of FIR was also ignored, High Court was justified in directing
retrial (Ayodhya Dube vs. Ram Sumer Singh18).
Section 397(1) of the Cr.PC does not say on whose motion Court may call for the records of the
lower Court, but subsection (3) indicates that an aggrieved party may make an application. So far
as High Court is concerned, Section 401(1) expressly authorizes the court to exercise power of
revision suo motu apart from the application from a party. The complainant is entitled to move a
revision even if state does not. When there was acquittal of the accused that was charged on a
police report and the state did not file an appeal against it, the informant, since he had no right of
appeal against the order, was held to be competent to apply for a revision.
The revisional jurisdiction when involved by a private complainant against an order of acquittal
ought not to be exercised lightly and that it could be exercised only in exceptional case where the
interest of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the
prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice Kaptan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh19
LIMITATIONS
Section 399(3) of Cr.PC provides that in a case where any application for revision is
made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, no further proceeding by
way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court.
17
2004 (7) SCC 659
18
AIR 1981 SC 1415
19
(1997) 4 supreme 211).
16
Suppose a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC between X and Y terminated before the
magistrate in favor of X. The criminal revision of Y before the Sessions Judge was
dismissed. A criminal revision before the High Court at the instance of Y shall not be
entertained. In the same illustration if Y’s criminal revision before the Sessions Judge
was allowed, a criminal revision to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge
at the instance of X is maintainable.
In a case where under the Code of Criminal Procedure an appeal lies but no appeal is
brought, then according to Sub-section (4) of Section 401, no proceeding by way of
revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
While Courts might have expressed different view on the scope of the bar under Sub-
section (4) of Section 401, there can be no dispute that Suo motu power of the court is not
at all affected by the bar in sub-section (4) of Section 401.
Whether where a power is exercised under Section 397 of Cr.PC, the High Court could
exercise those very powers under Section 482, Cr.PC.
Inherent power of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the
Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance. It is true that Section 397(2)
clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of interlocutory orders passed in
appeal, inquiry or other proceedings. The matter is however, no longer res integra as the
entire controversy has been set at rest by a decision of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye
v. State of Maharashtra20, the word 'interlocutory' was further defined and the reference
of the case of Amar Nath (supra) was also made therein. The proposition of law that the
summoning order was not an interlocutory order (as laid down in the case of Amar Nath
(1977 Cri LJ 1891)) (supra), was affirmed in this judgment also. The Apex Court held
that such type of order (order issuing summon to accused) is surely not interlocutory so
as to attract the bar of sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr. P.C. but it was an intermediary
order.
20
1978 SCC (Cri) 10: (1978 Cri LJ 165).
17
21
In the case of Raj Kapoor vs. State , Justice Krishna Iyer, while distinguishing the
power of the High Court under Section 397 vis-a-vis Section 482 of Cr. PC observed that
Section 397 or any of the provisions of Cr.PC will not affect the amplitude of the inherent
power preserved in Section 482.
In Amar Nath v. State of Haryana22, the interlocutory order was defined. The Apex
Court held that the orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate
the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be
interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction. The facts
of the case were that Magistrate had issued summons to accused and it was held that the
order was not an interlocutory order and can be revised under Section 397 Cr. P.C.
The Apex Court in Mohit vs. State of UP 23, observed that any order which substantially
affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be
an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order. Orders
summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and
such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory
orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But
orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the
accused or a particular aspect of the trail cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to
be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
'In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam 24, the reference of the case of Amar Nath
(1977 Cri LJ 1891) (supra) and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1978 Cri LJ
165) (supra) and V. C. Shukla v. State, 1980 SCC (Cri) 695 : (1980 Cri LJ 690) was also
made and the Apex Court came to the conclusion that order issuing summons to accused
21
(1980) 1 SCC 43
22
1977 SCC (Cri) 585: (1977 Cri LJ 1891).
23
(2013) 7 SCC, 789
24
1999 SCC (Cri) 393 : (1999 Cri LJ 1620).
18
'These are the few judgments, which are cited above laying down this law since 1977 that
order issuing summons is revisable under Section 397 Cr. P.C. It is really a very sorry
state of affair that a Sessions Judge who is heading the district judiciary, is in utter
ignorance of the basic principle of the law so elaborately pronounced by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Now the judicial officers in this State are provided with residential library
and necessary grant is also placed at the disposal of the Sessions Judge to contribute a
number of journals but probably the Sessions Judges has hardly any time to look into
such journal to apprise themselves with such an established principle of law. If this is the
standard of knowledge at this level, what guidance can be expected by the Sessions Judge
to his subordinate officers and especially the officers who join the services afresh.'
Though “appeal” and “revision” appear to be similar legal terms, there are certain subtle
differences between them. The distinction between an appeal and a revision is a real one.
Appeal: There is no definition of the word “appeal” in any statute. It can be defined as the
judicial examination by a higher Court of a decision of an inferior Court. It is a legal proceeding
by which a case is brought before a higher court for review of the decision of a lower court.
Appeal is a process of re-examination by a higher court of the judgment, or the order or the
decision made by a lower court in a suit or in a case. Appeal is the right of entering a superior
court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the court below. It is a
proceeding taken before a superior court for reversing or modifying the decision of an inferior
court on ground of error.
The expression “appeal” has not been defined in the code, but it may be defined as “the judicial
examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of an inferior court”.
Revision: Revision is the act of examining again in order to remove any defect or grant relief
against irregular or improper exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction by a lower court. Revision
19
is like re-working and re-writing. Revision, meaning "to see again," takes place during the entire
writing process as we change words, rewrite sentences, and shift paragraphs from one location to
another in our essay. Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful
examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving.
In Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the provisions relating to appeal are contained in Sections
372 to 394, while provisions relating to revision are contained in Sections 397 to 405.
In Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the provisions relating to appeal are contained in Sections 96 to
112, while provisions relating to revision are contained in Section 115.
(2) An appeal lies only from the decrees and appealable order, but a revision application lies
from any decision of a court subordinate to the High Court from which no appeal lies to the High
Court or to any subordinate court.
(3) A right of appeal is a substantive right conferred by the statute, while the revisional power of
the High Court is purely discretionary.
(4) An appeal abates if the legal representatives of a deceased party are not brought on record
within the prescribed period. A revision application however does not abate in such case. The
High Court may at any time bring the proper parties on the record of the case.
(5) The grounds for an appeal and revision application are also different. An appeal lies on a
question of fact or law or of fact and law, while a revision application lies only on the ground of
jurisdictional error.
25
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/What-is-the-difference-between-appeal-and-revision--31806.asp
20
(6) In case of appeal the memorandum of appeal must be filed before the appellate court by the
aggrieved party, but filing of an application is not necessary in case of revision.
(7) Ordinarily appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on question of law as well as on facts of
the case whereas revisional jurisdiction involves only the question of law and this jurisdiction is
never considered a rehearing.
(9) An appeal is a right based remedy and can be claimed as of right if there is statutory
existence of it, where the revision is the purely discretionary remedy and cannot be claimed as of
right.
In case of Hari Shanker v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhur, 26, the Supreme Court highlighted the
distinction between appeal and revision as under:
“The distinction between an appeal and a revision is a real one. A right of appeal carries with it a
right of rehearing on law as well as fact, unless the statute conferring the right of appeal limits
the rehearing in some way as, we find, has been done in second appeals arising under the Code
of Civil Procedure. The power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior court so that it
may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law.”
Likewise, in Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh,27 the Supreme Court held as under:
“…an appeal is a continuation of a suit or proceedings wherein the entire proceedings are again
left open for consideration by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire
evidence subject, of course, to the prescribed statutory limitations. But in the case of revision
whatever powers the revisional authority may have, it has no power to reassess and reappreciate
the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is implicit in
the concept of revision.”
26
AIR 1963 SC 698: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 933
27
(1995) 4 SCC 201
21
In the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdullah & Co.,28 the Supreme Court observed as
under:
“When the legislature confers a right of appeal in one case and a discretionary remedy of
revision in another, it must be deemed to have created two jurisdictions different in scope and
content. When it introduced the familiar concepts of appeal and revision, it is also reasonable to
assume that the well-known distinction between these two jurisdictions was also accepted by the
legislature. There is an essential distinction between an appeal and a revision. The distinction is
based on differences implicit in the said two expressions. An appeal is a continuation of the
proceedings; in effect the entire proceedings are before the Appellate Authority and it has power
to review the evidence subject to the statutory limitations prescribed. But in the case of a
revision, whatever powers the revisional authority may or may not have, it has not the power to
review the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is
implicit in the concept of revision.”
In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand,29 the Supreme Court held as under:
“It appears that the learned Single Judge has equated appellate powers with revisional powers,
and that the core difference between an appeal and a revision has been overlooked. It is trite legal
position that appellate jurisdiction is coextensive with original court’s jurisdiction as for
appraisal and appreciation of evidence and reaching findings on facts and appellate court is free
to reach its own conclusion on evidence untrammeled by any finding entered by the trial court.
Revisional powers on the other hand belong to supervisory jurisdiction of a superior court. While
exercising revisional powers the court has to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings
and also whether the subordinate court has kept itself within the bounds of its jurisdiction
including the question whether the court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
Though the difference between the two jurisdictions is subtle, it is quite real and has now
become well recognised in legal provinces.”
28
(1965) 1 SCR 601, 604: AIR 1965 SC 1585
29
(1998) 1 SCC 687: AIR 1998 SC 596: (1998) 91 Comp Cas 361 : 1998 Cri LJ 856
22
Similarly, in the case of Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal,30 it was observed that the revisional jurisdiction
of the High Court does not include the power to reverse concurrent findings, without showing
how those findings are erroneous.
CONCLUSION
An appeal is a creature of statute and the power and jurisdiction of the appellate court must be
circumscribed by the words of the statute. At the same time, a court of appeal is a ‘court of
error’ and its normal function is to correct the decision appealed from if necessary, and its
jurisdiction should be co-extensive with that of the trial court. It cannot and ought not to do
something which the trial court was not competent to do.
Review and revision, these are two legal concepts and the recent pronouncements have created
some confusion regarding their respective contours and maintainability, hence ought to be
addressed at the very outset.
Review is done by the court passing an order whereas revision lies to a superior court; secondly,
the purpose of review is to correct an error apparent on the face of record whereas revision lies
on question of law or a mixed question of fact and law.
30
AIR 1963 SC 499: 1962 Supp (2) SCR 623
23
Bibliography
Contemporary criminal Law; Concepts, cases, and controversies, Matthew lippman,
SAGE Publications, United States of America, 1st Edition, 2007
Contemporary criminal Law; Concepts, cases, and controversies, Matthew lippman,
SAGE Publications, United States of America, 2nd Edition, 2010
Criminal Procedure, R. V. Kelkar, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 4th Edition, 2001
Fundamental of Criminal Law, Paul H. Robinson, Little, Brown and Company, Canada,
2nd Edition, 2007
Sarkar On the Law of Criminal Procedure, S. C. Sarkar, Wadhwa And Law Company,
New Delhi, 9th Edition, 2007
Woodroffe, Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure, sir Jhon Woodroffe, Law
Publishers (india) Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad, 3rd Edition, 2009
Links
http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminology/code-of-criminal-
procedore.php#ixzz3WSYiWXlY
http://www.powershow.com/view1/10ef2cZDc1Z/CRIMINAL_PROCEDURE_CODE_1973_po
werpoint_ppt_presentation
24
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/177rptp1.pdf
-**-