anuj

3/15/13 Manupatra - Your Guide to Indian Law and Business and Policy

www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompID=16866&actid=783&iPage=1&hText= 1/115

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 conferupon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correctmiscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of properprecautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injuryto 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 iswhether substantial justice has been done. Though, if it has been an appeal, the applicant would beentitled 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 Wherethe 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 impugnedorder 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 Thepowers 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 areessentially 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 generalpower 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 ofrevision. The High Court can at any stage of its own motion if it so desires, and certainly whenillegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records andexamine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as itsduty 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 waslegally impermissible to dismiss the revision as withdrawn with liberty to take all the pleas taken inthe 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 ofrevision which a High Court has in the case of any proceeding, the record of which has been calledfor by itself, or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge. Thissection 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 investigateinto the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate under

http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompID=16866&actid=783&iPage=1&hText=#

http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompID=16866&actid=783&iPage=1&hText=#

http://www.manupatrafast.in/ba/ViewSectionwise.aspx?nactcompid=16866

http://www.manupatrafast.in/ba/baJudgments.aspx?nactcompid=16866

http://www.manupatrafast.in/Search/dispCommentary.aspx?nActCompID=16866&actid=783&iPage=1&hText=#f1
















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 forrevision 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 beenreplaced 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 presidingover Sessions on original side.-Sections 397 and 401 would not enable the appellate side of theHigh Court to interfere with non-appealable orders of the Judge presiding over the Criminal Sessionsof the High Court or correct or rectify mistakes or error if any committed during the trial at theSessions. A necessary prerequisite to the application of section 401 is that the record must be therecord of some court other than the High Court. The original side of the High Court is not a separatecourt and hence section 401 cannot be invoked for the purpose of revising an order made by aJudge of the High Court sitting in sessions. Neither expressly nor by necessary intendment doessection 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 warrantissued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the amount from the accused released on bail is takencustody of from the police station and proceedings are pending before Income-tax Commissioner. Ithas 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 ofMunsif 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-WormSeed 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 discretionarypower, 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 oughtnot to be crystalized as it would become, in course of time, by one Judge, attempting to prescribedefinite rules with a view to binding other Judges in the exercise of the discretion which theLegislature has committed to them. This discretion, like all other judicial discretions, ought, as far aspracticable, 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 powerof interference cannot be circumscribed by any hard and fast rule and it must always depend uponthe 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 torecord the statement of the prosecutrix and submit the same to the court. In the larger interests ofjustice 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 section401 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 Therevisional jurisdiction of the High Court is exercised at its discretion and only for the purpose ofrelieving persons who have not had a fair trial, or whose convictions have been arrived at by non-observance 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


















where its interference is called for. Hence the contention that because the lower appellate courthas 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 beexercised only in exceptional cases where there is manifest illegality or irregularity or grossmiscarriage 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 tointerfere 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 powerin revision to re-open transactions which had been already legally completed under a temporarystatute, 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 donot 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 mayproperly be asked to do in revision is to put right any incorrect or irregular or improper sentence ororder which a subordinate court may have delivered or to check any such irregularity as section 464does 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 theends of justice.

It is not every irregularity or error committed by the subordinate court that the revisional court willtake upon itself to set right. The High Court does not interfere if it thinks that substantial justicehas been done in a case. But where it is satisfied that a serious miscarriage of justice has takenplace it possesses unfettered powers to pass such orders as it, in its discretion thinks fit to do soeven though the aggrieved person could have taken the matter to an appellate court and has failedto 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 itsnotice 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 powersof 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 ofrevisional 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 settledlaw 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 ofthe 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 exercisedonly 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 asidethe conviction with the observation that the accused must be deemed to have been in continuousservice 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 amiscarriage of justice either by reason of any material illegality or irregularity in procedure or where




















there is no evidence to support the findings or the finding has been arrived at contrary to well-

established principles of law.47 On a conviction of several accused only one accused files appealagainst conviction. The whole prosecution story is found not free from doubt. It was held that itwould not be in accordance with justice to allow other convicts who had not appealed, to remainconvicted. 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 beexercised where there has been a miscarriage of justice in whatever manner the miscarriage mayhave arisen. As to what amounts to miscarriage of justice serious enough to rouse the conscienceof the court (as it is sometimes called) so as to justify interference in revision, that has been leftopen by sections 397 and 401, to the discretion of the Judge which must be exercised with dueregard 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 willnot affect the High Court's powers under section 401 to pass suitable orders in an appropriate casewhen 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 hiscase 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 inrevision 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 entireproceeding 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 analysingthe 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 inprocedure or the violation of such a fundamental principle of law which can be taken as ipso factoresulting 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 undersection 114, I.P.C., by the trial court, but circumstances showed that he ought to have beenconvicted under section 109, it was held that, as the accused on either view was liable to exactlythe 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 framedand further this objection is not raised at earlier stage, the plea of defective framing of chargecannot be raised for the first time in revision. An order of discharge was passed by two of theMagistrates of the Bench, but the complaint of offence under section 211, I.P.C., was made bythree Magistrates. It was contended that this constituted an illegality because the complaint wasmade 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





















9. Interference in error of law.-Where in declining to issue summons to person abroad through theconcerned 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 ofoccurrence 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 HighCourt 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 prescribedprocedure 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 asideconviction, 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 beensufficiently 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 prosecutionunder 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 inlaw, 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 HighCourt of the mistake the High Court has power, if it is of opinion that the order is illegal, to set rightthe mistake. The fact that the information comes in a form not proper or that it comes after theHigh 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 accusedand even in that question it is not put to him that he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligentmanner and other circumstances appearing against the accused are not put to him, this has causedprejudice 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 insistenceof 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 theillegality in the order has come to notice, the High Court has ample power in revision to set it rightby 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 anyadditional 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 cannotbe said to be unreasonable or manifest illegality. In a private revision, unless manifest illegality orperverse 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 ofprocedure committed by the lower courts. The order of conviction and sentence does not sufferfrom any illegality or impropriety. The revisional power of the High Court being a kind of supervisoryjurisdiction 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 HighCourt 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 inrevision, 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.85 If the order of acquittalis absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and ultra vires its legal competence as thecourt 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 aprohibition 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 interferenceand 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 orderif 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 inwhich a question of law arises. The absolute discretion vested in the High Court under sections 397and 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 isnot the duty of the High Court sitting in revision to correct mere mistakes of law which have nomore 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 notbound 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 applicationunder 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 setaside 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 causeinjustice, 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 asdefence 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 HighCourt under section 401 of the Code, being by its terms entirely discretionary the court is not boundto set aside on revision, a case of a joint trial of two opposing factions in a riot case, though it isopposed 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 everycase 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 illegalon 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 notenter upon a reappraisal of the evidence on which the order of commitment is made. The High Courtwill be justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction where a substantial question of law arises onwhich correctness of order of commitment may be effectively challenged, where there is noevidence to make the order of commitment, where there has been denial of a right of fair trial,





















where there is failure to comply with the rules of procedure or conditions precedent to initiation ofcriminal 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 caseof conviction for rioting, the charge was defective in that it did not specify the common object andneither the judgment of the original court nor that of the Sessions Judge in appeal found what thecommon object was, the High Court refused to issue a rule as there was no necessity in theinterests 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 thecase had jurisdiction and so in view of such concurring finding of fact, the High Court sitting inrevision could not disturb the same. Even if the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, hisorder 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 theundoubted 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 specialbarring revision. Even where there is something barring revision, the High Court can always holdwhether an order had or had not been passed without jurisdiction, for, if an order is withoutjurisdiction, 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 triableby a first class Magistrate to the file of a second class Magistrate with a direction to treat them aspreliminary register cases with the intention that the cases should be committed to the session'scourt, 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 thecomplaint under section 199 immediately after the summons was served, or at the time the order forframing 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 haspowers 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 toact 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 substantialjustice 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 Anorder 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 jurisdictionconferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it is invoked by aprivate 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 ofthe accused to acquit him because of the absence of the complainant, the Magistrate must havebeen conscious of the prayer of the complainant to dispense with his presence, and must bedeemed to have dispensed with his presence. In any event, not acquitting the accused andadjourning the case is not such an illegal order which must on revision be interfered with and

acquittal of the accused ordered instead.118



















(ii) Sentence.-Unless there is something that is manifestly wrong with the sentence, unless it isclearly out of proportion to the offence, if it is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and he hasexercised 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 Wherealthough a Magistrate having been given discretion to pass orders in certain matters does not usehis 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 recordedby 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 caseis made out against accused revisionists ;

(d) where the Magistrate and the subordinate appellate court exercised their discretion arbitrarily byrelying 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 whilethe 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 holdingthat no case is made out against some accused and nothing has been pointed out to show that thereasoning 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, whoseson and husband are murdered, is rejected on the ground that the testimony is not sufficientlycorroborated on all material particulars, the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accusedsuffers 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 aMagistrate in instituting proceedings for security for good behaviour the High Court interfered and

quashed the proceedings.127 Cheating cases and insolvency proceeding pending-Magistratedirecting 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 ofcompetent 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 Judgesetting 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 judicialdiscretion declined to direct prosecution, in revision the High Court is not at all justified in itselfdirecting the filing of complaint. At best, if the High Court considered the orders of the two courtsbelow tainted with a serious infirmity or manifest error resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, itcould 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
















not justified.132 In a case of framing of charge under section 307, I.P.C., the fact of injury beingdangerous 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 sufficientmaterials should be given in the judgment to enable the High Courts to come to a conclusion as tothe 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 thejudgment 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 complywith the provisions of section 354, does make it clear that the Magistrate had perused the evidenceand heard the arguments, and having heard the case argued, had come to independent opinion asto the guilt of the applicants, the High Court need not set aside the Magistrate's order and directthe appeal to be re-heard as there had not been any failure of justice. The High Court is notinvariably 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 courtof 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 toshow that the Magistrate is authorised to receive and try charges under section 20 of the CattleTrespass Act is not raised before the Magistrate himself, the presumption in law is that theproceeding 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 apetitioner 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 ina 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 non-appearance 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 astand 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 relatingto ill-treatment by husband which ground is found to be not proved. There is not even a whisper onher 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
























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 theprovisions of section 278, have been duly complied with or not is a question of fact ; unless it hasbeen 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 beenexamined and cross-examined and objection petition filed in 1974 regarding non-compliance withprovisions 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 themandatory 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 entitledto obtain copies of writings containing statements of witnesses under section 162 is not a matterwhich can be raised for the first time in revision at the stage of arguments. It is a matter primarilyfor 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 hasnot been raised at the trial, on the contrary, he entered a plea of not guilty on his own behalf andalso 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 andforfeited in another is not interlaced with any question of fact but is based purely on construction ofthe 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 orpolice 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 capacityof 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 thecharge, but is mentioned in the complaint filed, and no objection was taken in the Magistrate'scourt, 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 ofPilgrimage Act (II of 1920), to impose daily fine, being a mixed question of law and fact, could notbe raised for the first time in revision, when it was not raised either during trial or when the matterwas 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 itwas 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 hadthe 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





















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 whenMagistrate 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 andasks for interference on the ground that he was prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the trialcourt, an important point always is whether the objection was taken at the earliest opportunity. Itis doubtful whether, when an accused person does make an objection at the earliest possiblemoment, he can be debarred from raising it subsequently in a court of appeal or revision merelybecause he did not come up straightaway to that court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raisea new ground not taken in the courts below. It is true that the question is one of law but even sothere is no good reason for departing from the well-settled principles regulating procedure in criminalcourts. Parties-whether State or individual-should have prior notice of new grounds. They shouldnot 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 goodfaith and other requirements of Exception 9 of section 499, I.P.C. it is open to the accused to relyon 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 aperson 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 ofthe report of the public analyst, which is accepted by the accused. The accused cannot in revisionraise 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 Magistrate exercised his discretion properly in disallowing anapplication filed at a late stage by accused to further cross-examine a prosecution witness. Thispoint was not taken as a ground in the appeal before the Sessions Judge. The High Court will not

entertain the objection in revision and there was no defect in the proceedings.177 Where nogrievance is made against closing of their defence by the Magistrate either in the grounds of appealbefore the Addl. Sessions Judge or in arguments before him, this plea obviously seems to be an

afterthought.178

(q) Acquiescence to jurisdiction.-Where the petitioners never objected to the case being heard bythe Magistrate in proceedings under section 145 and took their chance of success, the case havingbeen 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 onewithout jurisdiction-it makes no appreciable difference to the accused whether the complaint is filedby 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 thefirst time in revision, on non-existent evidence, the plea cannot be raised to challenge theprosecutions 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 theHigh 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


















(t) Point of law.-A point of law can be raised for the first time in revision.186 Where subsequentproceedings are prima facie barred under section 403(1) by acquittal of accused in priorproceedings but this ground is not taken by the accused in the revision petition filed against hisconviction 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 hasbeen convicted and sentenced for doing an act which at the time was not an offence, it is the dutyof 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 partieswere 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 wherecomplaint 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 onone point-Other point may not be considered.-Where, in a criminal revision, the High Court findsthat the accused is entitled to succeed by giving a finding on one of the two points raised by himand that the decision on the other point impugning the validity of a Notification issued by the ChiefCommissioner is not imperative for giving the finality to the matter in hand, it is not obligatory onthe 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 orextraordinary 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 notlimited to cases where the High Court acts suo motu. In any case whether the High Court acts ofits 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 thesentence is patent and has come to its notice, the High Court should deal with the matter suo motuin 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 aperson filing a revision petition does is to draw the court's attention to an illegal, improper, orincorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate court. Filing of revision petition by the brotherof 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 bywhatsoever 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 outsidethe 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 Revisionaljurisdiction 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 itsjurisdiction in order to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed byany inferior criminal court. After having found that the impugned order of the Magistrate is neitherlegal nor correct, it will be travesty of justice if the High Court declines to interfere, for the simple




















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

(a) Official communication.-An official communication from Government for revision of a case iscovered 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, butalso 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 ofpersons jointly tried and convicted at one trial, who have not preferred appeals though they couldhave done so, but in which the matter has come up before the High Court on appeal or revision filedby other convicts, if on examining record it be discovered that the lower courts have acted illegallyon 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 notmatter in whatever way the record comes to the High Court. The High Court has power under thissection in a proper case to set aside the conviction and sentence passed on an accused personwho 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 hasa 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 butthe said case is brought before the court by some other party, nothing will stand in the way of theHigh Court to exercise its revisional powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the endsof justice. In complaints against strikers for offences under sections 4 and 5 of Essential ServicesMaintenance Ordinance and prosecution by police, consent is given to public prosecutor, in spite ofopposition by complainants, to withdraw the cases, held, in a matter of such public importance, theHigh Court can exercise its powers of revision suo motu, if there is sufficient ground and the locusstandi 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 toimprisonment applies in revision, the court will not interfere where it appears that the prisoner is ofage, 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 prisonerhimself, where he himself prefers to abide by the decision already given, must be careful to avoidtaking any action which may place him in other and perhaps greater jeopardy while seeking toremove the stigma of illegality from the administration of the law. Where the informant in revisionhas 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 suchalleged 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 onthe invitation of one that is directly affected by the alleged illegality or irregularity. In a pendingSessions case, the public prosecutor who is in charge or any one under his authority should movethe 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 iscompetent but is filed beyond limitation the petition of appeal cannot be treated as an applicationfor 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















maintainable.215 A petition of appeal is not equivalent to a revisional application but under section401 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 correctorder 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 theaccused has filed appeals against convictions and sentences to the Sessions Judge and thecomplainant subsequently files a transfer petition to transfer appeals to High Court to be heardalong 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 undersection 401 are wide enough to empower it to entertain a petition by third persons, even when theaccused did not co-operate and took no steps to appeal, because the section expressly includescases or proceedings "which otherwise come to its knowledge". However, in a case which hasproceeded 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 whocould have appealed and did not appeal but is not a bar to the petition of any one else, who desiresto 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 section378, 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 thereare slight mistakes in some of the reasons, but the judgment as a whole shows that he has reallyapplied 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 bythe 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 casesinstituted on police reports, ordinarily a complainant has no locus standi to come in revision to HighCourt. But if there is manifest error on point of law causing miscarriage of justice, the High Court

can exercise its revisional powers even at the instance of a private party.223 A private party has nolocus standi in a case instituted on police report to demand adjudication on an application inrevision. 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 forcases 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 theHigh 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 Associationauthorised the President to file a revision application to the High Court invoking its powers undersection 401 on the ground that the conviction was illegal, it was held that the proceedings by wayof 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 interferein 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





















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 convictedperson.-The High Court can entertain an application for revision against an order of conviction evenafter the convicted person is dead. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court bybeing moved either by convicted person himself or by any other person or suo motu, on the basis ofits own knowledge. The conditions for the exercise of the power of revision are laid down in theopening clause of section 401. While the condition for the exercise of the powers of courts ofappeal is that an appeal must be preferred by the convicted person, that condition is conspicuousby 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 revisionpetitions shall not abate on death of the accused. The High Court is not bound in a revision petitionto 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 theHigh Court in revision by any person. Where, therefore, the applicant dies after filing the applicationin 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 ofconviction 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 haspleaded 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 recordfor 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 notcontrolled by the principles contained in the provisions of section 375 and may be invoked, whethersuo 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 anappellate court are restricted by section 375, the powers of the High Court in revision are notsimilarly restricted. The powers of the High Court in dealing with the revision application are asample 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 amanner that it will compel a Magistrate to apply his judicial mind honestly to the complaint preferredto him but not so as to inhibit him from throwing out a complaint which, after applying his judicialmind to relevant materials, he feels should be thrown out. The revisional powers of the High Courtare not in any way curtailed or circumscribed by section 375, and even when there is a plea ofguilty, 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 ofconviction on the accused's plea of guilty except as to the extent or legality of the sentence, theHigh Court in revision may interfere with the conviction, apart merely from the sentence, if it issatisfied that the finding is either incorrect, illegal or improper. The High Court, however, should notarbitrarily or without good reason disregard the plea of guilty.

It must be satisfied that the plea of guilty was either misunderstood or misconceived under theparticular features present in the case. While an accused cannot ordinarily be allowed to withdrawfrom his plea of guilty insofar as it amounts to his confession of the facts charged, he can at thesame 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
















(iv) Examination of evidence and charge.-Under section 401, the High Court can examine theevidence on which the conviction is based, irrespective of the plea of guilty. Where the Magistratefollowed the procedure under section 240, the High Court will be reluctant to examine thesufficiency or otherwise of the materials before the Magistrate. But it is certainly open to the HighCourt 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 HighCourt 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, canalso 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 thepowers 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 theexercise of its revisional jurisdiction, examine the records of cases for the purpose of satisfying itselfas to the correctness or propriety as well as the legality of any finding, sentence or order, andwhere 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 amongstothers 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, therecords of the case are before the court and it has come to the knowledge of High Court that theAddl. 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 eventhough 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 orderpassed under Cr.P.C. merely because it is in proceedings relating to detention, these proceedingsare proceedings within that the meaning of section 401. Any order passed in any proceedings underthe 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 Anaccused is entitled to the judgment of an appellate court in every case in which an appeal is opento him. But if the appellate court does not do its duty, his remedy lies in an application for revisionunder section 401. It is true, the accused can approach the Sessions Judge for a reference to theHigh Court under section 395, but in the end it is the High Court which deals with the matter, andits 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 hearthe appeal, and dispose it of. Moreover, an accused has no right to insist that his appeal should beheard by any particular court. Under section 401, the High Court can transfer any appeal pending ina lower court to itself for trial, provided it is expedient for the ends of justice to do so, and in thatcase, 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
















fact that he is invariably heard, and the fact that the discretion conferred by section 401 isexercised in a judicial manner does not make any difference to the fact that the accused has noright to demand any of these things. All that he is entitled to is that a second court of competentjurisdiction should hear his entire case as an appeal. If he gets that, he has obtained all that thelaw 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 haswrongly 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 HighCourt in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is very wide indeed and any order can be passed byHigh Court appropriate in the circumstances of the case subject to the restriction that an order ofacquittal cannot be converted into an order of conviction. It is only, therefore, when an applicationin revision is allowed by the High Court against the order of acquittal at the instance of a privateparty that the High Court is obliged in law to remand the case. But in all other circumstances, theHigh Court is competent to pass any order that might be passed by a court of appeal. When seizedof 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 thecorrectness 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 itconsiders that there is necessity or desirability of the production of the same at the stage ofenquiry and before the framing of the charge, but the accused cannot compel the provisions ofsection 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 hasnot considered the question of bona fide claim of right of the accused, and the finding that theaccused entered into the property not with the dominant intention to intimidate, insult or annoy hasno 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. againstR where, as per prosecution case itself, R appears on the scene subsequent to the lodging of reportand 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 detailedreason 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 forthe petitioner to have waited till the notice was served upon him it does not bar him from coming toHigh 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 itsrevisional 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 uponthe 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 revisionhas been admitted on the question of sentence only, the hands of the revisional court are notfettered in scrutinising the evidence and to come to a conclusion whether the charge has beenestablished or not. In a revision petition where the legality of the impugned order itself is called inquestion, the conviction and sentence of the non-petitioning accused cannot also be sustainedconsistent with the findings in and the result of the revision petition and as the findings areinterdependent 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 Acthaving overriding effect on the provisions of section 401, Cr.P.C. operates in a limited field andduring pendency of the confiscation proceeding under section 6-A of the Act or appeal undersection 6-E of the Act. When a final order is passed, in a confiscation proceeding or in appeal, such
















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, theHigh 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 Courthas 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 exercisedsparingly, 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.-Wherethe 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 trialcourt has convicted the accused but the appellate court has committed an error in relying upon apiece 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 acase 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 bysub-section (3).-The High Court has jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal but it cannotconvert 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 draftedsub-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 cannotconvert 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 convertingacquittal into conviction that was based on reappraisal of evidence. In doing so Apex Court furtherlaid 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 withsection 386(b), the High Court, in the case of a conviction, can reverse the finding and sentenceand acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried or committed for trial. Section 386empowers an appellate court to pass an order of discharge, and, therefore, there is no reason whythe 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 Wherethe conviction is founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, which does not inevitably lead to aninterference of guilt of the accused, the mere circumstances that the accused did not stop thetruck 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 hadperused all the records connected, it could exercise its revisional power not only in favour of thepetitioners 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 bedealt 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 ofaggravated offence.-Where a prisoner is convicted by a subordinate tribunal of an offence within




















its jurisdiction, and the evidence discloses an offence of a graver character beyond the jurisdictionof the tribunal, the High Court may quash the conviction and sentence for the minor offence anddirect 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 aMagistrate convicts an accused of an offence falling within his jurisdiction though the facts foundwould also constitute a more serious offence not within his jurisdiction, the High Court will notordinarily 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, whenthe 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 theconviction 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 underEssential Commodities Act ; on appeal Sessions Judge finds conviction and trial to be illegal but doesnot 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 isthe nature of the sentence which does or does not give a right of appeal, and it is hardly open toaccused persons to say that they should have been given a higher sentence so that they mighthave a right of appeal. Where a Magistrate contents himself with framing a charge of an offenceunder section 147, I.P.C., instead of under section 452, I.P.C., and passes an unappealablesentence, the High Court will not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction in revision on the groundthat 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 acquittalof major offence.-In an appeal by the State against his acquittal of the charge for a majoroffence, the High Court has power under section 401(1), to acquit the accused where the factsfound are incompatible with his guilt even for the minor offence. In this connection, the powers ofthe High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401, are not trammelled by sub-section (4) whichonly 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 asa court of revision set aside the conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate of competentjurisdiction, 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 convictionsof the accused for a similar offence was not adduced at the trial, the High Court would refuse tointerfere 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 therewere previous convictions against the accused, and the Magistrate, without questioning or callingfor proof of those convictions convicted the accused and sentenced him, the High Court would


















interfere in revision and set aside the conviction and sentence.304 Where a Magistrate omitted toset out in his charge the previous convictions of the accused, the High Court, sitting in revisionwould 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 setout 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 toallow the prosecution to shape its case afresh after the whole matter has been thrashed out andthe 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 theprosecution case by allowing examination of witnesses who should have been examined by theprosecution 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 4years 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 toproduce 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 trialand, 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 notbe 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 admissionof truth of the accusation set out in summons but was wrongly treated as plea of guilty andconviction and sentence given without examining prosecution witnesses, it was held that theprosecution should have pointed out the error to the trial court and asked it to proceed with thecase 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 notdisclosing 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 constitutedby proved facts.-In the absence of any material irregularity in a trial in which all available evidencewas produced, an order of retrial would merely amount to an expression of dissatisfaction with theresult, 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 tillrising 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 ornot, the court should bear in mind the harassment the accused had already gone through, the timethat has elapsed between the date of the commission of the offence and the date of the order ofretrial, the expenditure that might have been incurred by the defence as well as by the prosecutionand 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 hasbeen 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 orderedof 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 ina prosecution for rash and negligent driving, in revision, the trial is found vitiated for non-compliancewith 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 wherethere is no difference between the case of the accused who came in revision and the one who did


















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 lawby 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 whenthe advocate of the accused does not appear, the Sessions Judge heard only the public prosecutorand the appeal is disposed of on merits, on that score alone, the judgment dismissing the appeal isliable to be set aside. But it is not proper that the accused should be made to face the ordeal of atrial 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 ondifferent 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 groundson the basis of which the trial court has acquitted the accused are not sustainable in law and it isseen 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 thetrial Magistrate regarding the charge against the accused and the accused was not properly triedthe 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 theoffence being one under section 279, I.P.C., the trial which was initiated on a summons undersection 130(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was illegal, in view of the fact that damage had beencaused by the rash and negligent driving of the accused and also in view of the notorioustendencies 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 anillegality, trial having not been in a proper and legal manner. Normally the High Court in revisionwould 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 convictedon a trial which the appellate or revisional court considers to be unfair, improper or irregular, is toset 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 thepetitioner under section 170, I.P.C., and it was also found that the petitioner acted rather throughvanity 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 hearingan appeal has committed a mistake in not taking evidence under section 428 and the High Court isof the view that the Sessions Judge is wrong in not exercising his powers under section 428 andexamining certain additional evidence, the High Court can, under section 386(b)(1), order that theaccused be retried by the Sessions Judge i.e., his appeal be reheard and under section 386(e) directthat 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 TheHigh 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


















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 theaccused 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 previousconvictions.-It is not fair to the accused to reverse the conviction and direct him to be committedto 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 aconviction and if the evidence on the record is sufficient to warrant a conviction, the court wouldnot be justified in setting aside, merely because the view taken of the evidence by the lower courtis 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 notinterfere 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 wrongsection in a case in which no charge was framed, it is open to the High Court, if necessary, torevise 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 insection 386(b)(ii) that a court of appeal has the power 'to alter the finding maintaining thesentence'. 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 ofsession, 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 showthat the conviction should be for an offence under section 225-B and all the material facts werestated 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 and401, 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 beenframed both of the commission of the principal offence and of the abetment thereof, the casecomes within the purview of sections 386 and 221 and the High Court may in exercise of either itsappellate 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 principaloffence 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 acase under this section is a very wide one. If the facts established by the record do not justify theconviction of the accused of the offence of which he has been convicted but justify his convictionof 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 beexercised 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 particularset of facts is required to be proved cannot be converted into a conviction for an offence of whichquite 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


















High Court will not convert a conviction for possession of country liquor in excess of the quantityprescribed, on its finding the evidence insufficient as to the total quantity possessed, into aconviction 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 trialcourt.-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 aconviction.-Sub-section (3) says that nothing in the section shall be deemed to authorise a HighCourt to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Prior to the judgment of the JudicialCommittee in 50 All 722 (PC), there was a divergence of judicial opinion as to the competency of theHigh Court to convert an acquittal into a conviction, where an accused was convicted of oneoffence and acquitted of another. According to one view, "acquittal" in sub-section (3) meant acomplete 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 wascharged with murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and was acquitted of murderbut 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 sameview as that of Allahabad High Court. Where a man was convicted under section 323, I.P.C., on acharge 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 undersection 304 and the High Court of Allahabad acting in revision found him guilty of murder. The PrivyCouncil held the case as one which justified them in interfering, even though it was a criminalmatter, for they pointed out that section 401(3) forbade the altering of an acquittal into aconviction in a revision proceeding. Their Lordships approved of the decisions in 44 All 332 and 48Bom 510. This decision of the Privy Council was followed in 7 Rang 538 ; AIR 1929 Lah 615. Where acharge under section 302, I.P.C., is followed by a conviction under section 304(2), I.P.C., the resultof the trial includes an acquittal under the major charge. The High Court has no jurisdiction inrevision 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 accusedperson who was charged under section 161, I.P.C., necessarily implies an acquittal under section161, 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 Magistratemust 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 fromconverting the finding of acquittal under section 302 into one of conviction under that section, it isnot precluded from convicting the accused under section 325 where they have been acquittedunder 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 ofthe trial court to what extent, in the circumstances of a particular case, the punishment awardedshould approach or recede from the margin prescribed by the law ; and the discretion so vested inthe trial court cannot be legally interfered with by the High Court in revision, more so, when theappellate court confirming the conviction and sentence has not considered it desirable to interferewith 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 Ifadequate 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

















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 subordinatecourt has committed an illegality in the matter of awarding sentence, the proper course to beadopted 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 sections325/34, 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 couldorder 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 noprevious 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 rigorousimprisonment on 19th September, 1930. On 11th October, 1930, he was again sentenced to fouryears' rigorous imprisonment under section 243, I.P.C. On appeal, his conviction under the Arms Actwas quashed and he was acquitted on 15th January, 1931. It was held that under section 427, thesecond sentence commenced on 15th January, 1931, the date of the accused's acquittal under thefirst conviction. It was further held that equitable principles required that the period of imprisonmentalready undergone under the first conviction should be deducted from the imprisonmentsubsequently 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 ofparties, 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 (UnlawfulPossession) 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 isnothing 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 appealand only pray for reduction in sentence, normally it will not be proper for the High Court in revisionto interfere with the order of conviction. But where there is no material on the basis of whichconviction 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 gointo 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 sentenceand 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 waseffected 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





















under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was pending for 8 years, the petitioner was facing mentaltorture 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 Courtcan 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 hasthe 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 andstatements under section 25 of Evidence Act and section 162, Cr.P.C. may be regarded asprocedural and the High Court cannot interfere with it on those grounds, but when the objection tothe 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 fromthe papers produced in the court, the prosecution could have gone in revision before the HighCourt. It is not open to the prosecution to request the High Court to revise the charge by examiningthe Medical Officer at the stage when application is given by the parties under section 320(2) andorder 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 andon appeal, case is remanded for retrial and accused convicted again. On appeal the case is againremanded it has been held that the accused must have undergone considerable expense, tensionand harassment during 7 years that the trial has been pending, it will clearly be unjust andprejudicial 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 theprovisions of section 482 which may or may not be capable of being invoked according to theexigencies of a particular case, the High Court has ample jurisdiction under section 401 to pass asuitable 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 onsubjective 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 petitionagainst 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 initialorder drawing up a proceeding under section 107 and calling upon the other side to show cause, arevision 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 whetherthere 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 pendingbefore the lower court or direct the lower court to grant such exemption, when such courts have

refused do so.395


















(vi) Order under section 116.-Although in the case of an emergency order under section 116, acourt in revision is not in a position as is the Magistrate to understand the emergency and necessityfor the order and will not substitute its own opinion for that of the Magistrate, yet the order of theMagistrate must have a legal basis, though proceedings under Chapter VIII are only of a quasi-

judicial 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 madeunder section 116 without having come to a decision that the title is on the side of the applicantand the non-applicants unjustifiably obstructed him in exercise of his right to remove fruits, theMagistrate 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 passedunder section 118 discharging an accused can be challenged in revision, the High Court will not gointo the merits of the case unless there is something to show that there has been a materialdeparture from the legal principles according to which the case ought to have been dealt with orsomething extraordinary about the facts. The mere fact that there was a conflict of opinionbetween 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 ownmotion to interfere in cases where it is satisfied that the lower court was wholly wrong in theexercise of its discretion upon the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the security offered beforehim, 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 undersection 144, after which the order is no longer in force and that apart a title suit has beeninstituted 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 seemto have realised that he was called upon to act judicially, the High Court must, in exercise of powersunder 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 denialregarding 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 ofpossession and there is likelihood of breach of peace, and the Magistrate is satisfied that to avoidbreach of peace the property has to be placed under attachment, the filing of the civil suit need notdeter 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 undersection 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 section145 on being satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of peace and also passes an order attachingthe 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 tothe scope of revision application for canvassing the question whether or not emergency existed atthe time when the attachment order was passed by the Magistrate under section 145. The orderappointing 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 finaldecision and if the Magistrate thinks that in respect of a portion of the property no emergencyexists, he can cancel the attachment order in respect of that portion. Such an order need not be

interfered in revision.409

















(b) Civil court's finding.-The civil court's finding on a reference under section 146 is not assailable ina criminal revision against the final order of the Magistrate passed in a proceeding under section 145in conformity with the decision of the civil court. A criminal revision is, however, maintainableagainst 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 thatthe 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 provisionsof 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 section145 is in conformity with the decision of the civil court, the High Court has no jurisdiction tointerfere 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 undersection 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 itsrevisional 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 thegrounds 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 section147, 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 rightlyarrived at the conclusion regarding possession, his order under section 145 is not vitiated by anyerror 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 shouldbe 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 donot 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 onlyvery rarely that the High Court interferes with the orders under that section unless the orders onthe 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 partyin proceeding under section 145, the revision petition by those who were not arrayed as secondparties is incompetent, even that, the petition by the two persons who were second party has tobe considered.

(i) Order of possession of disputed land.-Where the Magistrate after considering all the materials onrecord has declared possession of the disputed land in favour of a party and there is no illegalitycommitted 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 inpossession of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order and proceedings under section 145cannot be initiated in a case where the property is joint family property and parties are not in joint


















possession, there is no infirmity to call for interference by the High Court in revision.425 In aproceeding 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 illegalityor mispropriety has been committed by the Magistrate holding one party to be in possession ofdisputed 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 HighCourt 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 thoughnot 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 ofmaterials 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 undersection 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.-Wherethere was no certainty as to the facts whether the money was dishonestly disposed of ormisappropriated at the place where the person was to account for the same and the prosecutionwas 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 againstthe 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 beconsidered 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 istreated 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 acomplaint was dismissed for want of personal knowledge, on the part of complainant, of thecircumstances 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 anoffence 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 MunicipalitiesAct, the case was adjourned and the notice was not served on the complainant because of hisabsence 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 indismissing a complaint, though there might be something which can be used against that order, ifthere is as much to be said in it favour, the discretion of the lower court in dismissing the complaintshould 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 TheMagistrate having been informed by the complainant that an application for transfer has been madein 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




















202, the Magistrate issues process under section 204, supra, the High Court will not ordinarilyinterfere 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 23of them on the ground that there was sufficient ground to proceed only against them, the HighCourt 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 actionunder section 204, the Magistrate has to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses andexamine 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 Magistratehas 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 cannotbe 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 aMagistrate to try persons accused of an offence before him either jointly or separately. That is clearfrom the expression "may" which appears in section 223. But, at the same time, it cannot possiblybe 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 bepermitted 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 notexercised 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 theprovisions of the Cr.P.C., as regards the mode of trial (e.g.) joinder of several persons in the sametrial in circumstances not covered by section 223, the High Court must necessarily interfere, evensitting as a revisional court. Revisional jurisdiction under section 401, is undoubtedly, discretionary inits nature, but that discretion has to be exercised on judicial principles. If there has been no trial inthe eye of law, the court must necessarily step in to set right the wrong and quash the convictionand 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 thiskind. If the case is of a trivial nature, or the harassment caused to the accused by the illegal trial isdeemed 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 thecomplainant 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 re-call 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, thatthe 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

















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 amere order of adjournment may amount to an error of law, for example, an adjournment for anunreasonably long period or an adjournment for a reasonable period but after a number ofadjournments where the position is that the last adjournment though not unreasonable in itselfbecomes cumulatively with the preceding adjournments unreasonable. But if there is nothing legallywrong 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 theservices of a pleader, whom he wants to engage for the purpose of cross-examining the prosecutionwitnesses. So, where a Magistrate refused in such a case to give time, the High Court would staythe proceedings and direct the Magistrate to re-summon the prosecution witnesses for cross-

examination 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 Theorder of the criminal court directing an accused to pay costs for adjournment under section 309pending 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 ordinarilyinterfere 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 livelihoodproceedings have been pending for an inconsiderably long time mainly due to the fault of theaccused and where a murder has taken place because the murdered persons were witnesses in thebad 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 summonadditional 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 section319 ought to be passed at a proper stage and not at the time of pronouncing judgment and thattoo 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 tothe succeeding Magistrate if it is so necessary in his opinion in the interest of justice to recall andexamine witnesses afresh. Therefore, in the same circumstances, the High Court acting in itsrevisional 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 revisionlay 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 421provides 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 hasalready served out the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine. What it requires is that insuch cases, no court shall issue distress warrant unless for special reasons to be recorded inwriting, it considers, it necessary to do so. Where the reasons given by the Sessions Judge arerelevant, 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 ofrevision, set aside an order rejecting an appeal summarily without inspection of the record, anddirect 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, withoutgiving the appellant's pleader an opportunity of being heard after the records are sent for, is subject

















to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.470 Where the evidence on record was insufficient tosupport 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, onappeal from convictions under sections 6 and 7 of the Madras Town Nuisances Act, 1889, theMagistrate after finding that there was no evidence that the house where gaming was carried onwas a common gaming house, orders a retrial in absence of an assurance of the prosecution thatsuch 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 thepowers 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 asideproceedings 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 theapplication 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 convictionand sentence of Rs. 50 fine for contempt of court under section 401, where it appeared that thepetitioner used a highly improper expression within the precincts of the court, it was held that forthe reasons given when directing notice to be issued, the case appeared to be one in whichdischarge 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 themaintenance under section 125 payable from the date of application, the order must be supportedby 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 canshow any illegality in the procedure or impropriety in exercise of any power of the Magistrate, thereis no bar for such petitioner to straightaway file revision petition in the High Court without firstmoving an application before the Magistrate under section 126. Even though the revision has beenfiled 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 petitionby 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 inlower 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


















(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 partysaddled 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 maintenancewithout 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 ofthe failure of husband to have applied under section 126 to the Magistrate against ex parte order ofmaintenance 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 bythe Magistrate cannot be interfered with when evidence has been properly considered and analysedunless 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 withthe 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 notwithin 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 Courtwill ordinarily interfere with orders under section 125 only if court below has failed to exercise itsdiscretion judicially.

(h) Documents.-In maintenance proceedings documents in possession of the husband but notproduced 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 1957is extremely inadequate to sustain the lady at the present time. If the income of the husband hasincreased considerably, it is but just and proper that the maintenance of the wife should also bereasonably increased. Where the Magistrate could not enhance the maintenance allowance, therebeing 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 withdrawalfrom 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 forwithdrawal 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 ofpublic 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 theconsent to the withdrawal from the prosecution is judicial act and the discretion under section 321must be exercised judicially. Ordinarily the High Court is reluctant to interfere with the discretiongiven, 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, thecourt 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, theMagistrate 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



















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 HighCourt 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 hasexercised the discretion under section 452 on some wrong principle and that it ordered custody ofproperty 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 revisionexercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal under sections 386, 389, 390 and 391and as such may make any amendment or any incidental or consequential order that may be just orproper. 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 petitiondirected 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 takeproceedings under section 144, supra, considered that, having refused to take proceedings underthat section he was not competent to investigate the question as to who was in possession of theproperty 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 aproper court, the High Court would interfere with his order as he has not judicially exercised thediscretion which section 457 confers on him. The Magistrate ought in such a case to exercise thediscretion conferred on him by section 457, that is, if the Magistrate decides that one or other ofthe parties was in possession at the time the police seized the property, the proper order to bepassed would be to restore that party to possession. If the Magistrate is unable to decide who is inpossession, 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 HighCourt's powers of revision under section 401 are very wide and are not limited to those specifiedthereunder. Section 401 merely describes some of the reliefs which the High Court may grant and isin no way exhaustive.

The High Court has power to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of any order passed by asubordinate criminal court including an order of transfer made by an inferior court under sections408-412, such an order falls within the purview of the words "of any other order" in section 401, andthe 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 ofdiscretion with the Judge to transfer a case and unless it is shown in the High Court that graveinjustice 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 ChiefJudicial 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 assigningreasons for the order. The order was made on account of alleged abnormal delay, but it was notlikely that the case would proceed more quickly in the new court. It was held that the order forwant of notice and being without reasons, although irregular, might not be illegal, but the High Court

















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 orderunder 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 hadcomplete 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 Butthe Rangoon High Court has taken the view that the High Court's powers of revision being, inexpress terms, limited to those conferred by certain sections mentioned in section 401 (sections408-412 not being one of them) and no power of transfer over and above that in section 407 beingconferred by the Letters Patent, an application to revise an order of the lower court dismissing anapplication 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 theHigh Court in an application for revision is asked not to transfer any case from one court to anotherbut 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 ina case to which the provisions of that section are applicable after taking into consideration all therelevant 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 notinterfere 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 arevisional 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 followingconsequential or incidental orders :

(i) Orders as to costs of revision proceedings under Chapter XII.-It has been held by theBombay High Court that the High Court has power in revision to award costs incurred in the hearingof 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 adifferent view. The High Court, exercising its powers of revision from an order passed by aMagistrate under Chapter XII, has no inherent power to award to the successful party the costsincurred in the revision proceeding ; nor can the award of cost be regarded as incidental orconsequential 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 undersection 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 directingcompensation to be paid is not a consequential or incidental order within the meaning of section386(e), nor can it be said that in revision the High Court makes an order consequential or incidentalto an order of a Magistrate calling upon a complainant to show cause why he should not paycompensation if it orders compensation, to be paid. Hence the High Court cannot under section 401read with section 386(e), make an order for compensation, even if, upon the judgment and even ifcause 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 acquittingcourt whether original or appellate, not only has power to make but is bound to make. It is aconsequential or incidental order as it follows as a matter of course, being the necessarycomplement to the main order passed without which the latter will be ineffective or incomplete. If asubordinate court disregards the provisions of section 335, the High Court has power to remedy the















error in revision.527

(vi) Orders under section 456.-The power of making any amendment or any consequential orincidental order that may be just or proper was first conferred under the Code of 1898. The power isvery 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 thecorrectness 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 isrequired, 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 courtsdid 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 toissue a warrant for arrest of the accused under section 390. A warrant of arrest is not an order tothe 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 section401(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 alsopowers to direct evidence to be taken. The High Court, in a case of discharge can direct, evenbefore 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 ofrevision, although it does give power to call for additional evidence upon which the High Court canitself come to a conclusion. An order of the High Court, based solely upon the finding submitted bythe 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 andunfettered right to ask the court to summon the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination, oncethe accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Whereconduct 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 toprove 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 thatthe High Court will, while exercising jurisdiction under section 401, ordinarily call a witness forexamination 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 hewas the usufructuary mortgagee and the trial court held that the mortgagor was entitled to thetrees on redemption and that the accused had cut them with the intention to cause wrongful lossto mortgagor, convicting the accused. In revision against conviction subsequent judgment of civilcourt recognizing right of accused to cut and remove the trees brought to the notice of court thatjudgment of civil court should be admitted as additional evidence in the interests of justice by therevisional 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 allowingcomposition of offence in appropriate cases and the fact that the revision has been admitted only
















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 section320(6), the High Court can exercise the power of allowing composition of an offence in appropriatecases, 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 orstrictures 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 tothe character of any person who is neither a witness nor a party to the proceedings and who hashad 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 lowerappellate 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 aSessions Judge in convicting an accused person passed strictures on the complaint of police-officeras a result of which he was dismissed from his service, it was held by the Bombay High Court that itwould 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 toexpunge evidence in a pending case. It is for the trial court in the first instance to deal with theevidence in accordance with law. Until then, the matter is at large, and the High Court cannot inrevision 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 Sind83 (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 notan 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 goodconduct should not be set aside, the order being illegal and invalid and pass sentence in lieu of it, itcannot 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 undersection 145, the obligation imposed upon the court under section 401(2) cannot apply to revisionagainst an order passed in proceedings under section 145. Therefore, an order dismissing a revisionagainst 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, whetherinadvertently or after condoning the delay in absence of and without notice to the respondent, therespondent, on receipt of notice of revision must be allowed to urge that the revision should nothave been admitted. These considerations will not obviously apply where the High Court proceeds toexercise 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


















(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 Courtexercises 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 towrite 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 section401(2), no order can be passed to the prejudice of an accused unless he has had an opportunity ofbeing heard either personally or by a pleader in his own defence. In an application for revisionagainst an order of acquittal, if the High Court decides to set aside the order of acquittal, it can soset aside the order only in respect of the accused persons who are actually parties to the revisionapplication. So far as the accused persons who are not parties to the revision are concerned, theHigh 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 anyproceedings in which an order awarding compensation to him is to be set aside, he cannot bedeemed an accused person on his defence within the meaning of section 401(2), so that if, afterproper attempts have been made, he cannot be served, an illegal order for compensation passedunder section 250, must not necessarily stand for ever. Moreover, section 401(2), must be readwith sub-section (1) of the same section, and the frame of the whole section appears to haveapplication to an accused person charged with some offence and not to an accused person towhom 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 anaccused person and the complainant applied to the High Court under sections 397 and 401, the HighCourt 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 ofarrest under section 390 is not an order to the prejudice of the accused within the meaning of sub-

section (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 inthe appeal and the State asks that on the evidence recorded, the conviction should be altered intothat 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 personswas convicted of the offence of conspiracy to murder while the others were convicted of murder, aswell as of conspiracy to murder and the latter alone preferred appeals to the High Court which setaside their convictions on all the charges and ordered their retrial. It was held that the High Courtshould also set aside the conviction of the non-appealing accused in exercise of its revisionalpowers and that if it was of opinion that he should be retried along with the other appellants itshould, having regard to section 401(2), direct that a rule should be issued upon him and upon theState 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 filedunder section 195(1)(a).-Where a Magistrate makes a complaint under section 195(1)(a), againsta person of an offence punishable under section 188, for having disobeyed orders passed inproceedings under section 145, the very filing of the complaint by the Magistrate is a judicial actand any application to the Sessions Judge to have the complaint withdrawn is asking the SessionsJudge to exercise his judicial discretion. Such an application is not by way of appeal but is one byway of revision. And any order of the Sessions Judge summarily dismissing the application forwithdrawal of the complaint without his being heard either personally or by pleader acts to the

prejudice of the applicant and is, therefore, improper.564













24. Interference with pending proceedings

(i) General principle.-There is no doubt that the High Court has power to interfere in revision witha pending case. Section 401 gives wide powers of control over the proceedings of the inferiorcourts, but that is an extraordinary power, which by its very nature, imposes grave responsibility onthe High Court of exercising it with due circumspection, to avert miscarriage or promote the ends ofjustice. That is a residuary power which being of a discretionary character is incapable of preciseand rigid definition. But the revisional authority extensive as it is, rarely travels beyond the region oflaw or procedure to correct errors in decision on the facts. When its exercise is called for in apending case, section 401 must be read in conjunction with section 397. In a pending case, noquestion as to the correctness or propriety of a finding can arise ; consequently the superior courtcan 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 Theproceedings 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 ofcourt and harassment of the accused on trial. In such circumstances, considerations of justicethemselves dictate the termination of proceedings. Where, however, the facts alleged and soughtto be proved do constitute an offence and the decision turns on the credibility of witnesses andinferences 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 inexceptional cases such as where a person is being harassed by an illegal prosecution ; where thereis some manifest and patent injustice apparent on the face of the proceedings and calling forprompt 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 casewhere certain persons were being prosecuted for various criminal offences on a police challan andno evidence had been recorded in the case, the only circumstances in which the High Court willordinarily 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 ofstay 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 willinterfere 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 HighCourt 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 thelower 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 HighCourt in a pending case cannot be laid down with precision. But one safe practical test would bethat 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 aquestion of territorial jurisdiction arising during the pendency of a case must be decided by the HighCourt). 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

















liability is no ground for quashing the criminal proceedings by the High Court in its revisionaljurisdiction. There is nothing in law to prevent the criminal courts from taking cognizance of anoffence, 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 lowercourts and will not interfere with a pending proceeding even though irregularly conducted, unlessthere is an exceptional ground for interference. Generally speaking, a High Court would notinvestigate 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 theHigh Court to interfere with pending proceedings in a criminal court. If it is a false and vexatious orfrivolous 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 illegalprosecutions, 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 tobring revision applications for that purpose before the High Court before the facts have been fullyascertained. It is not the practice of the Allahabad High Court to take evidence in revisionapplications 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 inrevision 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 theproceedings 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 underthis 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 thosepowers that are conferred on a court of appeal. On the other hand, it enacts that among thepowers 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 theexercise of its powers conferred by this section read with section 386(d), jurisdiction to quashcriminal proceedings pending in the court of a Magistrate. "Quashing of proceedings" is a term ofcompendious 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 ofembezzlement or other types of corruption will not be judicial exercise of discretion, where greatinjustice 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 hischaracter or to extract from the accused the substantive penalty for his offence but to subject himto 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 arebrought 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 toguide itself in quashing proceedings is that on the face of the proceedings, there must appear someinfraction or evasion of law calling for prompt redress. It cannot be held that the litigant, who electsto allege that statements made in an affidavit are false and on that allegation to present acomplaint under section 500, I.P.C., can be regarded as evading the law, even though it might havebeen open to him to wait until the civil suit had been decided and then to invite the civil court totake action against the affidavit or for the offence of perjury. And there is no infraction or evasionof the law patent upon the face of the proceedings to justify quashing of proceedings. But it is

















highly expedient that the hearing of the complaint in such cases should not proceed until thedisposal 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 disclosedor when the prosecution is bound, on the face of it, to fail, or for some other cause equallypowerful. Where the allegations made in the complaint, even taken at their face value, do notdisclose 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 Courtwill 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 acomplainant 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 thependency of an application before the Magistrate to discharge the accused and when the questionof 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 nocase 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 thestage of the trial when a charge is framed against him on the ground that there is no prima faciecase against him to warrant any charge at all or on the ground of misjoinder of charges. In suchcircumstances, 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 canquash 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 accusedof 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 section159, to be held by the deputy superintendent of police, the mere fact that the enquiry was not heldby that officer as suggested by the Magistrate does not make the submission of the charge-sheeton 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 forinstitution 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 framesthe charge, it would obviously be inadvisable to interfere at that stage unless it can be shown thatthe Magistrate's order is clearly perverse in the face of all the evidence brought before him ; andthe Sessions Judge cannot show that the Magistrate's order is perverse or wrong by merely tryingthe case in the manner he would do, had he been the Magistrate himself. This is not what arevisional 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 Otherwiseit 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 ischarged before he defends himself, and if he is convicted his first remedy in most cases is by way ofappeal 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 allegedagainst the accused person appears not to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the courtin 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 HighCourt will not quash a complaint which on the face of it discloses an offence, on the sole groundthat the Magistrate who entertained the complaint had no territorial jurisdiction to try the


















offence.608

(g) Summons case wrongly tried as warrant case.-A summons case was wrongly tried as a warrantcase and the error in procedure was not pointed out by the prosecution until the case waspractically finished. The Magistrate thereupon ordered a fresh case against which the accused cameup to the High Court in revision. It was held that further proceedings pending against the accusedshould be quashed inasmuch as the trial was conducted in a most dilatory manner by theprosecution 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 inthe 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 thenotice 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 lawor regulation, a certain person is only authorised to complain about a particular offence, theproceedings of a Magistrate based on a complaint relating to that offence, made by anyunauthorised 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 beencommitted in the institution of proceedings, there is no point in permitting the proceedings tocontinue. 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 onrecord to see if it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the allegedoffence and there is reasonable probability of the accused being found guilty. In a bona fide civildispute 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 proceedingwill be justified and is necessary in order to prevent a clear abuse of the right to resort to a criminalcourt.

The criminal court is never intended to be and is not a court where summary applications can bemade for possession. A proceeding under section 441, I.P.C., brought in a criminal court in order tobring pressure upon the accused to give the complainant possession where the accused could nothave 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 undersections 417 and 427, I.P.C., is filed against the accused only with a view to putting pressure onthe 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 andthe 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 probabilityof the accused being eventually acquitted after a protracted trial is no ground for the non-interference 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 HighCourt to interfere in order to quash pending proceedings only in two contingencies, (1) if theprosecution allegations, even when accepted as true, do not establish any offence against theaccused, 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 undervarious sections of the I.P.C. and three of them had not been arrested when the proceedings wereinitiated but they surrendered at a late stage after the trial and acquittal of the other five accusedand their case also rested on the same evidence, the High Court quashed the proceedings, as it wasclear 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 thecircumstances 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

















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 HighCourt is satisfied that an accused is being prosecuted without there being any material for theprosecution, 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 ofissuing 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 theseveral charges, the Sub-Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that there was a prima faciecase against the accused regarding a balance-sheet, went through the records and held thatexplanation given by the accused must be considered but that they should be tried. It was heldthat 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 toprevent the abuse of law and, if in a case under section 107, it is found that the information did notjustify 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 isordinarily no justification for any court to take up in revision what are really interlocutory matters in

a criminal court630 ; 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 canbe 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 thelower court or in proceedings pending before the lower court cannot obviously be exercised by acourt of appeal, inasmuch as it is only when a final order or judgment is passed by the trial courtthat the matter comes up in appeal.

A court of revision, however, which is entitled under section 397 to send for the records of anyproceeding of the inferior court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to its regularity, mustnecessarily have the power to interfere and quash the proceedings where it finds that suchproceedings are seriously irregular. The powers of the High Court in revision under section 401 arenot exhaustive. The section only enacts that among the powers possessed by the High Court arethe 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 withthe powers in appeal. It has to satisfy itself of the regularity of the proceedings of the inferior courtand 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'spower 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 havebeen 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 butthe 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 trialMagistrate, the High Court, proceeding on the assumption that all the facts alleged in the charge





















have been proved, held that in no view of the facts alleged there was any offence either of simpleor 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 givesrise 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 inrespect of a fixed deposit of the testator which the accused had withdrawn and deposited in theirown firm, and the case involved questions relating to the construction of the will, the authority ofthe executors, their subsequent conduct, etc. It was held that without having the whole casebefore the court, it was impossible for the High Court in revision to say if mixture of the testator'sfunds 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 acharge, 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 ispreferred against the framing of a charge after the examination of only some of the P.Ws., the HighCourt would be extremely reluctant at that stage to enter into the merits of the evidence producedin 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 acharge against him and contends that the offence, if at all, is made out as against the other co-accused, and not as against him, it is not for the court of revision at that stage to interfere andgive a finding one way or the other as that would prejudice the other accused. It would always beopen 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 ofevidence, adduced before the trial court. All the High Court is concerned about is whether primafacie sufficient material exists for framing a charge, and once the High Court is satisfied that acharge has been properly framed on the material on record and that there has been no irregularityor 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 thestatements of an accused after his conviction in a subsequent trial of certain persons whentendered by the prosecution as their witness, the Magistrate being of opinion that his evidencewould be inadmissible, the chief court on revision set aside the order of the Magistrate on theground that the evidence was not inadmissible and the postponement or the rectification of theerror 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 allowthe complainant to put certain questions to a prosecution witness on the ground that his answeringthe question might incriminate him in another pending case in which he was an accused person. Itwas held that this was a fit case for the interference of the High Court in revision at aninterlocutory stage. The Magistrate had made a patent error of law depriving the prosecution of theevidence 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 Courtinclude 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 RailwayDivisional Superintendent, at the request of a court, sends certain statements made by certainpersons to a station master, to the court in a sealed cover but at the same time takes objection totheir 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 courtdirects the committal of a party to the suit for trial on a charge for perjury or forgery and an appeal















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 areinstituted cannot claim, as a matter of course, that such proceedings shall be stayed pending theresult of civil proceedings. In each case, discretion must be exercised and the particularcircumstances of the case duly considered. Where the civil suit has been instituted without anyunnecessary 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 properthat civil suits instituted earlier should be given precedence over the trial of the criminal cases inrespect 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, asone 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 tothe legal principles. Where a company filed a civil suit against its employees and subsequently filed acomplaint with Magistrate for offence under section 408, I.P.C. and the Magistrate refused to staycriminal proceedings pending decision of civil suit, as the company has not, in spite of lapse of threeyears, 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 Courtstayed 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, thefindings of the lower courts which normally deal with the facts of a case may be reopened and evenbe 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 besaid that on no account or in no case should a finding of fact by the trial Magistrate be upset orreversed in revision. Ordinarily, however, a finding of fact by the trial Magistrate is not interferedwith in revision. But in a case where there can be no appeal because a non-appealable sentence isawarded, 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 severelyrestricted and it cannot embark upon a reappreciation of evidence. But in a case where the HighCourt 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 HighCourt 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 bechallenged 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 itcomes 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 undersections 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 thewitnesses in revision. Unless glaringly inconsistent evidence is indicated by the revision petitionerwhich was unreasonably accepted by the trial court resulting in miscarriage of justice, the revisionalcourt should be slow in disturbing the findings of the court below. Since it is clearly established thatthe 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 offirst instance dealing with questions of fact, and though it will in certain circumstances interfere on




















questions of fact, ordinarily it will not do so. It will interfere only on the clearest and strongestgrounds as when, for instance, there is no evidence to justify the finding of the lower court or whenit 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 interferewith the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below upon a revision application, unless thecourts 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 itscase 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 Courtwill 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 toquestion of law alone. In special and exceptional circumstances the High Court, in exercise of itsrevisional 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 notinterfere in revision with a finding of fact, unless it can be shown that the Magistrate has gravelymisapprehended 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 theHigh Court can always be exercised in order to prevent a gross and palpable failure of justice. Butthis exercise of revisional jurisdiction refers to such an error of facts as is obvious upon the face ofthe record and is not in effect a mistake by the Magistrate as to the question, which set of factsshould be deemed more acceptable but a blunder relating to the question as to whether some facthas been proved or not. But where there was evidence before the Magistrate which, if he believedin, 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 revisionapplications to prevent injustice, this power is to be exercised in accordance with well-establishedprinciples. It is not, for instance, for the High Court in revision to deal with questions of fact or oflaw as would a court of first appeal. To justify the interference by the court in revision, it must beshown, first, that the Judge below has committed some error of law, and, secondly, that theaccused has been materially prejudiced by that error. The court may also exercise its revisionalpower, even as regards findings of fact, in cases where the lower court has totally misconceivedthe evidence and come to an obviously wrong conclusion. But it is only in very extreme cases whichjustify 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 HighCourt are contained in sections 397 and 401 authorising the High Court to call for ''and examine therecord'' of any proceedings before any inferior criminal court. The examination of the record includesthe examination of the evidence on record led on behalf of the prosecution or on behalf of thedefence. Under section 401, the High Court may in its discretion, exercise any of the powersconferred 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 ofthe 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 notconclusively 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


















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 ifprima 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 HighCourt 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 mightbe 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 ofrevision, even if the High Court is of the view that the findings given by the Sessions Judge are notreasonable 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 mannerby which the High Court is enabled to interfere even on facts in appropriate cases, so that it is notdeprived 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 ofrevision, 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 ofwitnesses or substitute its own view of the evidence where two views are possible. However, whenthe finding of fact is arrived at contrary to well-established principles of law or where there is noevidence to support the finding or where the finding is perverse or such as no reasonable man couldhave 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 interferewith the findings of fact, but there can be no doubt that it has jurisdiction to review even questionsof fact, as the words of section 397 clearly indicate and will do so where there is a clear miscarriageof 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 itwere a court of appeal. So long as the proceedings of the Magistrate are in order and so long as theMagistrate has fairly estimated the evidence before him in his own mind, his decision should not bedisturbed, 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 setaside 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 inrevision 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 sufficientground 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 wasfollowed in 23 IC 493 by Ayling J., who held that it was in the discretion of a High Court to exerciseits power of going into the question of appreciation of evidence. But see the observations ofSankaran Nair, J.-''It has now been settled by a series of decisions of this court and of the Bombay


















and Calcutta High Courts that it is open to the High Court to consider whether there has been anymisappreciation of evidence, and if the court has power to do so and if a convicted person claims tobe heard to show that the lower courts have misappreciated the evidence in the case and that hehas been unjustly convicted, it is not, in my opinion open to a Judge to say that it is within hisdiscretion to permit or refuse him to do so or not. No doubt, the section only says that the HighCourt 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 orleft open upon a consideration of the character of the case as a whole and in detail and eventhough 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 byreason of the character of the error of law. There must appear, on the face of the judgment or ofthe order complained of or of the record, some ground-which need not always be a ground of law-toinduce the High Court to think that the evidence ought to be examined in order to see whetherthere has been a miscarriage of justice and it is not the right of a party to claim that the courtshould 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 ofrevision, 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 ofcommitment does not enter upon reappraisal of the evidence, but interference is justified where aspecific question of law arises on which the correctness of the order of commitment may beeffectively 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, generallyspeaking, within the High Court's function to go behind the finding of facts to support which there isevidence on record. Though the court's jurisdiction to interfere in respect of the correctness of thefindings 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 arrivedat his findings on the basis of that evidence, or has not wrongly held the evidence accepted by thetrial court to be inadmissible, nor has overlooked to take into account some material evidence onrecord nor has committed any illegality in appreciating the evidence, the question whether theevidence 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 allunless satisfied that a special occasion is made out for it which may be from the manner the trialhas been conducted in the court below or the omission to consider some outstandingcircumstances. 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 theevidence 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 acivil case, overlooking the important presumptions with which they ought to have started in theconsideration 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 sohopeless 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 shallaccept the finding on a question of fact recorded by a subordinate Tribunal unless it is manifestly














erroneous. The High Court will interfere when there is no sufficient appraisal of evidence by thesubordinate courts or where defence evidence was not looked into at all or adequate attention wasnot 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 barunder 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 ofinterference 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 followingcases.

(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 revisionalpower, the High Court can go into the facts of the case, when hearsay evidence, which is notadmissible, has been admitted upon important points and the evidence is not considered from theright 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 wrongadmission 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 havetaken into consideration inadmissible evidence, it is plainly incumbent on the revisional court tosatisfy itself that the remaining evidence which the lower court, could properly take intoconsideration, 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 uponby him had been excluded from consideration by the Sessions Judge and upon the remainingevidence that was relevant and material he came to the same finding as that arrived at by theMagistrate, 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 hasomitted 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 whichthe 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 revisionagainst an order of conviction passed after an unjustifiable order for retrial, seriously prejudicial tothe 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 HighCourt 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 whichthe 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 withundue delay and that the prosecution witnesses failed to give a proper explanation of the injuriessustained by the accused, being findings of fact, cannot be interfered with in revision. In a revisionpetition, the High Court cannot reassess the evidence. Where the accused chose to examine onlyone 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



















which the revisional court would not have preferred to take is by itself no ground for replacing theview 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 notproper 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 theHigh 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 thatappraisal 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 isin fact in overall charge of the affairs of the factory and whether or not he has any knowledge ofthe 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 theaccused 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 appellatecourt 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 merefact 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 thepowers 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 thestage of revision, High Court will not be entitled to compare the main signature with the admittedsignature 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 HighCourt 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 beforereferring to or relying on the documents produced by the accused, the Magistrate has come to theconclusion that no offence has been made out by the complainant either in his complaint or in hissworn 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 ownfindings 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 ofmarking the demeanour of witnesses accepts their version and when appellate court accepts suchevidence 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 HighCourt 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 primafacie case against the accused is made out and he issued process against them and the Magistratehas exercised his discretion and has given reasons for his conclusion, whether the reasons are good



























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 tore-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 factsin the light of an ordinary appeal but will see whether there is something in the way in which thetrial court has looked at the law or in the method by which it has dealt with the evidence whichmakes 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 twoconflicting sets of witnesses or two conflicting issues of fact but it may be compelled to dissentfrom 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 witnessesdo 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 canexercise in criminal revision. Where there is evidence of whatsoever character on which a particularfinding of fact may be made the court is precluded from interfering with that finding. Legality andpropriety in the section would both include questions of law as to whether a finding or sentence waslegal or proper having regard to the evidence. The word ''correctness'' in the section does not meanthat 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 ofthe Sessions Judge, but where the Sessions Judge has miscreaded, misquoted and omitted toconsider 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 setaside 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 theevidence on record and has held the evidence to be sufficient to make out a case for framing ofcharge 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 uniformpractice of the High Court is not to exercise its power of upsetting a finding on fact, except forsome 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 notordinarily 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 AllahabadHigh Court is that unless very strong grounds for an opposite course are found, the findings of thelower 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 trialcourt, 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 Incriminal 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 thelower appellate court on questions of fact, but the High Court can interfere with a finding of factwhen 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 theMagistrate to make notes of local inspection is only an irregularity and where there is ampleevidence on record to support the Magistrate's conclusion and there has not been failure of justice



















on account of this irregularity, the High Court will not interfere in revision.766 Unless there issomething on the face of the record showing that the accused has been prejudiced in any way bythe 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 becauseso some defect in the Mahazar. It has been held that Mahazar is not substantive evidence and canbe 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 hasdealt with the evidence carefully and has not omitted to consider any relevant or important portionof 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 undersections 323 and 342, I.P.C., on reappraisal of evidence the Sessions Judge does not acceptconviction under section 323, I.P.C., but does not disbelieve the prosecution evidence with regardto 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 thecourt of first appeal, when there is evidence which if believed supports such findings. However, ifthere are special circumstances, such as that the Magistrate who convicted the accused had notthe benefit of weighing the prosecution evidence first hand or that on a very important pointregarding 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, thefinding 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, onperusal of judgments of both courts below, it is found that it is only after careful consideration ofthe 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 doesnot 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 thefinding that it is the opposite party who as bhag chasi is in possession of the land and has raisedthe 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 revisionunder 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 ofwitnesses regarding extra-judicial confession and the finding is corroborated by medical evidenceand 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 boththe courts below cannot be said to be vitiated either by absence of evidence or by non-






















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 anyerror 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 SessionsJudge committed any error of fact or of law in arriving at their conclusions, the High Courtmisdirected 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 andappreciated 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 courtsbelow 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 theFood 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 forHigh 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 criminalcase, interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below on a question of fact but when it isbased 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 butas 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 factexcept in exceptional cases such as where the lower courts have approached the case from awrong point of view and the evidence produced has not received due consideration, where thefindings of fact are not based on evidence on the record and is proved to be wrong from the recorditself, where the judgment of the lower court is palpably wrong, where there has been a miscarriageof 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 inrevision 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 theprosecution 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 unlessthere are special reasons. It will not, save on the ground of an error of law or where the question isone of evidence, on exceptional grounds exercise the powers of an appellate court. But where suchexceptional 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 overtacts 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























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 consideredand estimated the evidence, its decision, generally speaking, is entitled to be upheld and should notbe 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 theavailable 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 decisionthat an eating house cannot be run without a licence under section 442 of the Calcutta MunicipalAct 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 withconcurrent 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 concurrentfinding 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 factdepending on appreciation of oral evidence, and the trial court had dealt with the matter fully andwas 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 aprosecution witness to be unusual and has drawn sustenance for his view from several surroundingcircumstances 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 notinterfere in revision except in very rare cases when the question involved is as to whether a place isor 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 asthat would remove the difference specifically laid down by statute between appeal and revision. Thetrial 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 findingsof 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 equallywell-established that this power should be very sparingly exercised. There is a well-markeddistinction between an application in revision and an appeal. It would be futile for the Legislature togrant the right of appeal in some cases and to withhold it in others if the High Court under the guiseof a revision were to allow conclusions of fact based on evidence to be canvassed and attacked, onthe footing of an appeal. Broadly speaking, the rule is that the High Court will only entertain arevision on facts where either there is no evidence to support the finding or where the findingarrived 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 theMaster-Plan has specified a particular use of a particular building and whether the personprosecuted 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 inrevision, is bound to accept the finding of the lower court unless there is any error of law orprocedure vitiating that finding or unless there are any special circumstances apparent on therecord 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 itsrevisional jurisdiction, in regard to findings of fact, save on very exceptional grounds such as a mis-statement 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 ofdefective investigation, of failure to consider important evidence, of consideration of evidence froma wrong point of view, of contravention of any provisions of law and of conviction upon facts which



















will not support the same will the High Court exercise its revisional powers.821 The High Court isusually 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 fabricateddocument, 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 aspectcan be attached to the assessment and evaluation of evidence made by courts below, even thougha 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 ofSub-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 offact and the High Court will not be justified in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the finding ofthe courts below on that question. It is the practice of the court in all cases of revision to confineits 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 ornot, 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 courtsregarding 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 proceedingunder section 125, whether the wife is the married wife of the husband and whether the child is thelegitimate or illegitimate child are questions of fact. Therefore, as pointed out by the SupremeCourt, 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 ina 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 theacquisition of property or interference with another's enjoyment is primarily a question of fact : andwhere the lower courts concur in finding that the acts proved and the intention with which theywere 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 ofaccounts resolves itself into a question of fact. The lower court's view with regard to the accountsshould be accepted as a finding of fact. In revisional proceedings, it is not open to the petitionersto 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 thefollowing cases.

(a) Inferences drawn not warranted by evidence.-An application for revision may be admittedwhere 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 basedon any positive evidence but upon inference drawn from certain circumstances arising from theevidence and all the materials on which the finding is based are set forth in the judgments of thecourts 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, incertain of the charges, erred in their inferences from facts as found, and have found the accusedguilty 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






















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 directlyestablishing an offence where those findings are concurrent, but where the lower court has drawnerroneous inferences from circumstances which really did not exist and failed to take a right view ofthe 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 asregards 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 findingof fact in revision. But if any finding is found to be perverse in not being based on any evidence, orwhen 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 notsupported by any legal evidence, e.g., where the only evidence was the admission of a co-

accused.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 revisionset aside an order under section 110, on a consideration of the evidence on the ground that as tosome important evidence the lower courts in their judgments failed to consider it at all, while as toothers they were accepted and relied on without any critical examination. The High Court could anddoes interfere in criminal revision, even with concurrent findings of fact where the conscience of thecourt is satisfied that in the broad interests of justice the conviction is not sustainable ; or wherethe 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 Courtfinds 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 theaccused, 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 toconsider the allegation of the prosecution it was held that the High Court had to interfere with itsrevisional 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 inrevision 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, theHigh Court will interfere. A conviction should not be based upon what the court considers thewitnesses ought to have said but upon what they actually do say. If by reason of a witness havingbeen 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 groundthat, 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 lowercourts, 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 andothers who had played active role in the crime are discharged, the High Court in revision can re-

appreciate 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





















based upon a manifestly erroneous approach and erroneous appraisal of evidence, and further theMagistrate has misconceived the evidence and has come to an obviously wrong conclusion, therevisional 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 aserious 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 ina case in revision and although a finding of fact arrived at is not disturbed in revision, yet if thefinding 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, theHigh 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 weretwo cross-complaints one by M against C, and his son R, and the other by C, against M and threeothers. The Magistrate acquitted M, and the three accused, but convicted C, fined him Rs. 30 andacquitted his son R. The conviction against C and R, was the same. On appeal the court gave afinding which was equivalent to rejecting evidence as unreliable, but upheld the conviction and forthe fine it substituted an order under section 360, supra, for security for keeping the peace. Onrevision, the conviction and the order demanding security were set aside, on the ground that nodistinction 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 stolenproperty to its owner, deposed that it was recovered from the petitioner and he was consequentlyconvicted 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 ofabusive 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 thevalue of the evidence for the first time, the High Court would interfere in revision but where theconviction 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 isab 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 complainantis 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 theabsence 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, thecase against an accused person is very doubtful, the benefit of doubt should be given to theaccused 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 inspecteda phataka in order to come to a finding that it was not a toy-work, the High Court in revision wouldrefuse to be bound by the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two courts and on a personalinspection 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 oncircumstantial evidence, the question whether the circumstances taken as a whole amount toconclusive proof of the guilt of the accused or not has often to be considered even by a court ofrevision 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 oncircumstantial 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,



















convicts a person on the sole testimony of accomplices, after noticing section 133 of the EvidenceAct, the High Court will not interfere in revision, except for special reasons. But where the lowercourt is of opinion that his evidence has been corroborated, the High Court may consider whethersuch 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 ofscrutinising 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 interferein revision with a decision of the lower court when that decision is based upon a consideration ofthe evidence on the record. But where the evidence is that of accomplices and the lower appellatecourt has not given due weight to this factor and has upheld the conviction of the accused uponthe 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 onthe 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 illegalityin 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 anorder of acquittal is fairly limited and cannot be lightly exercised except in exceptional cases wherethe 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 withan order of acquittal should be exercised only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaringdefect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there hasbeen a flagrant miscarriage of justice such as when the trial court had no jurisdiction to try thecase, or where the trial court had wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished toproduce or where appellate court had wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial courtto 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 Courtcannot interfere in revision with an order of acquittal unless there is a glaring defect in theprocedure 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 theHigh Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The High Court taking the matteron 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 StateGovernment has not preferred an appeal under section 378, the High Court ought not to interfere inrevision 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 takingsteps to produce witnesses in spite of repeated issue of summons, the Magistrate could not be saidto 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 doubtthat in the exercise of its powers under section 101, the High Court can in appropriate cases setaside an order of acquittal and order retrial. But it will do so only when the case is of a seriousnature. 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 section401(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 adecision on merits, the order cannot be treated as an order of acquittal and revision against the




















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 noappeal 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 asthey have not preferred appeal against conviction. Suo motu revisional jurisdiction is to be exercisedwith 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 acomplainant to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal passed in any caseinstituted 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 bysection 401(4) from presenting an application for revision. If, however, his application for the grantof special leave to appeal is refused by the High Court after considering the circumstances of thecase, 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 ofacquittal 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 heldthat 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 essentiallya 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 Governmenthas a right of appeal under section 378, could be exercised only in exceptional cases where theinterest of public justice required interference for correction of manifest illegality or the preventionof 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 anorder of acquittal at the instance of a private complainant, was again considered by the SupremeCourt in a recent case. Their Lordships state the law as follows. It is true that it is open to a HighCourt in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, thoughthe State may not have thought it fit to appeal ; but this jurisdiction should be exercised by theHigh Court only in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is amanifest 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 oneof convictions, and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does notconvert 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 placeslimitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is onlyin exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. These exceptional cases may be : wherethe trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the















trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where theappeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, orwhere material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, orwhere the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. Wherethe appeal court wrongly ruled out evidence which was admissible, the High Court would be justifiedin interfering with the order of acquittal in revision. But the High Court should confine itself only tothe admissibility of the evidence and should not go further and appraise the evidence also. In such acase the only course open to the High Court is to set aside the acquittal and send the case back tothe trial court for retrial. But there may be another type of case, namely where the trial court hasconvicted the accused while the appeal court has acquitted him. In such a case, if the conclusionof the High Court is that the order of the appeal court must be set aside, the question ariseswhether the appeal court should be ordered to re-hear the appeal after admitting the statement ithad ruled out or whether there should necessarily be a retrial. So far as this is concerned, it is opento the High Court to order a retrial or it may order the appeal court to re-hear the appeal. Wherethe entire evidence has been led and it was the appeal court which ruled out the evidence that hadbeen admitted by the trial court, the proper course is to direct the appeal court to re-hear theappeal 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 niland the High Court in revision thought that the evidence should have been believed and set asidethe order of acquittal passed by the lower court, the Supreme Court held that the order passed bythe High Court under section 401 was based merely and solely on the conclusion which it reachedon re-appreciating evidence for itself. The conclusion of the lower court which led to the acquittalof 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 whichthe Government has a right of appeal but has not appealed, can be exercised only in exceptionalcircumstances and not only because the lower court has taken a wrong view or misappreciated theevidence, 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 ofacquittal, the High Court, in absence of any error of law cannot re-appraise evidence or reversefinding 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 policereport, it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside order of acquittal even at the instance ofprivate parties though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should beexercised 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 complainant in case instituted on complaint.-See Note undersection 378, supra.

(iv) High Court will not ordinarily set aside acquittal on the merits.-Though sub-section (1) ofsection 401, authorises the High Court to exercise, in its discretion, any of the powers conferred ona court of appeal by section 386, sub-section (3) specifically excludes the power to "convert afinding of acquittal into one of conviction". This does not mean that in dealing with a revisionpetition by a private party against an order of acquittal the High Court could in the absence of anyerror on a point of law reappraise the evidence and reverse the findings of facts on which theacquittal was based, provided only it stopped short of finding the accused guilty and passingsentence 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 havingregard to the provisions of section 401(3) the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal intoone of conviction even indirectly by ordering retrial. What had happened in that case was that theHigh Court reversed pure findings of facts based on the trial court's appreciation of evidence butformally complied with sub-section (3) by directing only a retrial of the accused without convicting









them, and warned that the court retrying the case should not be influenced by any expression ofopinion contained in the judgment of the High Court. In that connection, the Supreme Courtobserved that there could be little doubt that the dice was loaded against the accused and it mightprove difficult for any subordinate judicial officer conducting the retrial to put aside altogether thestrong views expressed in the judgment as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and thecircumstances of the case in general. In a later case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observedthat the High Court should not deal with evidence in detail when it is going to order a retrial, assuch 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 issomething to show that there has been a material departure from the legal principles according towhich 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 judgmentby which he acquitted the accused, while laying great stress on all considerations that might affectthe credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, omitted to consider what might be advanced intheir favour and also failed to appreciate the corroborative value of an important witness for theprosecution, 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 casein the strict sense of the term e.g., a prosecution under the Municipalities Act, and concerned theinterest of a public body and was one of several cases of the same nature, which were pending inthe 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 underthe Municipalities Act were acquitted because the court was doubtful whether the bye-laws wereultra vires or not, and the court also erroneously considered the question of intention to break thebye-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 courtholds 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 trialcourt has jurisdiction to try the case, the court never shut out any evidence that prosecution haddesired to adduce, the case is not one where inadmissible evidence is admitted or material evidenceoverlooked, 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 wouldnot ordinarily take upon itself the task of weighing evidence afresh, and what it would consider iswhether the trial was regularly conducted and the law has been clearly understood and applied tothe 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 evidenceagainst 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 theopposite 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 anapplication 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 investigatingofficer fails himself to be examined, and a number of contradictions are elicited from the evidence ofthe witnesses and on that ground and other grounds in the lower court the accused is given benefitof 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 theevidence 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




















(d) No interference with findings of fact.-The High Court will not interfere when the Judge has triedthe case in a regular way and passed an order of acquittal upon a consideration of all the materialevidence on the record, on the ground that the conclusions arrived at by him are not correct. Suchfindings 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 filean appeal against the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused on charge under section302, I.P.C., in revision, this finding cannot be altered into one of conviction being barred undersection 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 adifferent 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 fordoubting 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 ofevidence and even if the trial court has possibly come to a wrong decision, that alone is no groundfor 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 inspite 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 isa 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 recordthat 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 revisionhas merely to see whether the case as laid by the prosecution was properly tried or not. An order ofacquittal has to be judged in the light of the case as presented by the complainant for trial in theoriginal 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 offenceunder section 147, I.P.C., he drops the proceedings, the order of the Magistrate for dropping theproceedings 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 withorders 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 401are very wide. Though the court cannot convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction, yetthere 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 theNegotiable Instruments Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section138, except upon a complaint in writing, made by the payee or the holder in due course, of thecheque. 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 precludedby a judgment of acquittal from exercising its powers of revision, such powers will only be exercised


















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 ofdoubtful 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 constitutedthe 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 courtfound that the accused had acted fraudulently but held that the fraud was inchoate and acquittedthe 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 withacquittals, yet when a Magistrate has without exercise of discretion acquitted on an erroneous viewof 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 wrongappreciation 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 awrong view of the law, the High Court directed a retrial, as the matter was of great importance tothe 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 convictionwrongly 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 SupremeCourt, where the Magistrate's order of discharge is virtually an order of "acquittal" and the order ismanifestly illegal the High Court has power to interfere with such a patently illegal order of acquittalin 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 revisionset 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 thepower 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 ofacquittal, 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 inclear 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 Courtdoes not interfere with acquittal unless it is satisfied that there has been a clear violation of thelegal principles involved in the case and it is necessary to set aside the decisions in order to preventirreparable injury. Where the acquittal is due to clear and serious error of law that a rival claimantcan 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 questionsof fact which he had to determine in order to adjudicate on the plea of right of private defence andacquitted the accused, and the brother of the complainant, who died during the trial, made an




















application for revision of the order of acquittal to the High Court, it was held that the Magistratehaving failed to appreciate the question of fact which he had to determine in order to adjudicate onthe 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 acquittalpassed by trial court in the absence of complainant, will entail in miscarriage of justice if it is foundthat 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 revisionwhether it is at the instance of Government or on behalf of private individuals. But when it comes tothe notice of the High Court that the acquittal in a case has depended not on an appreciation ofevidence, 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 apreliminary point of law relating to sanction and the view taken by him was manifestly wrong thecomplainant is denied the right to have his complaint decided on merits which the Magistrate wasbound to do had he not gone wrong on the question of sanction. Interests of justice thereforerequire that there should be a complete decision in the circumstances of the case. The question ofinjustice has not to be considered with relation to the accused only, and the complainant is alsoentitled 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, theMagistrate accepted a compromise put in by the relatives of the deceased and acquitted theaccused, 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 Wherethe 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 caseinstituted on a private complaint, after completion of the prosecution evidence and framing of thecharge, 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 isinvalid under the law, the acquittal is liable to be set aside by the High Court in exercise of itsrevisional powers. Where a person is acquitted of an offence as a result of an alleged composition ofthe 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 anoffence which is not compoundable under the law, the High Court may exercise its revisionaljurisdiction 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 acquittalor appeared to support the revision, it may be reasonably presumed that it has ratified theproceedings which ended in the acquittal and the High Court will not interfere with the order ofacquittal 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 anorder 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 justifyinterference 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 ofacquittal 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 accusedwas guilty of criminal trespass, it is not competent for a court of appeal without going into the case

















discussing the evidence or coming to any conclusion thereon to acquit the accused on the groundthat 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 specialpleadings 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 thelower court on appeal without discussing the evidence on record set aside the order of convictionby 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 withan order of acquittal does not apply to an acquittal under section 256 and in any case, the rule willnot 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 defenceevidence to an unusual hour and when the case was called on for hearing, the complainant wasabsent but the pleader was present and the Magistrate acquitted the accused, the High Court onrevision 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 onenot on merits, has the force of a complete acquittal for all purposes. The mere fact that theacquittal is not on the merits, does not make any difference whatever for deciding whether thereshould be an interference in revision against an acquittal. When the State Government does notmove in the matter, if the High Court is asked to interfere on reference, it will do so only if there beradical 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 beenframed, an order of acquittal owing to the absence of the complainant is illegal and the High Courtwill 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 graveirregularities in procedure and the irregularities and the absence of a proper charge to the jurypointed 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 chargeof rioting with the common object of taking possession of the complainant's lands without coming tofinding on the question of possession, it was held that the judgment was not a satisfactory one, asthe 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 andwhere the Sessions Judge has not exercised a proper judicial mind and has come to a decisionwithout 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 evidencebefore the court and comes to conclusions based on inadmissible evidence, the judgment beingcontrary 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 summonswere actually issued or what happened if it were issued nor did he consider whether further stepswere called for to secure presence of witnesses, but at the end of the month, proceedings arecompleted 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 thepetitioner to advance arguments in support of his contention in the trial court is a glaring defect inthe 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 inrevision with an appellate judgment of acquittal, and though that power should be sparinglyexercised, it would be wrong to refuse to exercise it in cases where there has been a failure ofjustice by reason of the appellate court not having brought a judicial mind to bear upon the

















evidence.986 However, where, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the SessionsJudge does not suffer from any manifest illegality and the interests of justice do not require the HighCourt 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 arehearing of the appeal on the ground that the appellate court had taken a mistaken view of thefacts, 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 wronglyexcluding 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 Courtordering a retrial, even where there has been an acquittal and there has been no appeal preferredby Government against such an acquittal. The power to order a retrial is unrestricted and such anorder 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. Inconsidering the question whether such a retrial should or should not be ordered, the discretion ofthe court is legally unlimited. In actual fact, however, the court seldom exercises this discretion andan order of acquittal will not as a rule be interfered with merely because the High Court disagreeswith the finding of the Magistrate. It is only when the record is incomplete or there is a flaw injurisdiction or where the finding is manifestly wrong or perverse that the High Court will interfere insuch cases. Where the evidence has been mis-stated, it is much the same position as if the Judgehad misdirected himself as to what the evidence was in the particular case. It will be open for theHigh Court, however, to consider whether in spite of the misdirection, any finding other than one ofacquittal would have been come to in the circumstances of the particular case and the High Courtwould 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 anincomplete record of evidence, or is against any provision of law, no difficulty arises because in suchcases the order of acquittal can be set aside and a retrial ordered without any prejudice beingcaused to the accused person. In cases where the order of acquittal is passed by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction and in which the entire evidence of the prosecution has been recorded, theHigh Court should be reluctant to order a retrial in revision, because such an order means practicallya direction to the subordinate court to which the case is sent, to convict, though because of theabsence 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 validor proper trial. If there is flaw in the trial, the only way of setting right a judgment of a subordinatecourt which is erroneous either on facts or in law is by proceeding under section 378. A revisionshould 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 ofacquittal and direct a retrial should be exercised only in exceptional cases and with caution. Itshould only be done in cases where the alleged offence is of a serious character and the Judgecomes to the opinion that there has been a miscarriage of justice, where for instance, the lowercourt, has misquoted the evidence, or where having the evidence before it, which is prima faciereasonable 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 testimonyof the eye witnesses has not been discussed, reliable testimony has been overlooked, materialevidence has been left out of consideration and overlooked, the judgment becomes impeachable andnon 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 theintrinsic worth of the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, had failed to use importantpoints including substantial and material contradictions as well as strong probabilities and that the













interests of public justice required that there should be a proper evaluation of the evidence againstthe 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 acase is made out that interference is absolutely necessary under section 401 e.g., refusal of theMagistrate 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 HighCourt to order a retrial, it should not be deterred from making such an order simply because the trialis likely to result in conviction. It may be that in a particular case nothing but conviction would meetthe ends of justice. Apart from that, if it is the clear duty of the High Court to order retrial in anyparticular case, it must do so and leave the matter at that. It is none of its concern at that stageas to what the result of the trial is likely to be. Moreover sub-section (3) of section 401 onlyprohibits the High Court from itself converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in theexercise 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 requirethat 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 afurther 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 orperverse, it would be most irregular for the High Court to order a retrial when there is no defect orirregularity in the trial. In revision it will not be proper to order further enquiry after setting aside awrong 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 privaterevision, 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 ithas 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 theaccused. 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 specialcases, 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 directremedy, e.g., where the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order for the taking of security to keepthe 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 toallow a private vakil to appear on his behalf, it appeared that the trial in which the private vakil'sassistance was required had ended in the conviction of the accused. It was held, that the case wasnot 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) enactsthat, when under the Code, an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way ofrevision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. Under section




















401(4), where a remedy by way of an appeal from acquittal is provided for, and no such appeal isbrought, 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 underthe provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, although under section 84 of the Act an appeal layagainst 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 onerestriction 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 hisinstance. This statutory bar cannot be circumvented by the High Court saying that it can treatrevisional application as an information or knowledge otherwise coming to the notice of the HighCourt for exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 401(1). Filing an appeal which is barredby 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 grantof special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order ofacquittal 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 privatecomplaint, subsequent institution of charge-sheet by the police cannot make the initial proceedingsstarted 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 ofappeal under section 378(1) is no right at all, an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case doeslie to the High Court alone and the provisions of section 401(4) will be attracted in case thecomplainant does not choose to move the High Court in appeal. Where an appeal has been providedagainst an order of acquittal and the complainant has made no attempt to invoke the provisions ofsection 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 Theprovisions under sub-section (4) of section 84 provide only an alternative remedy against orderunder 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 proceedingsunder 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 fromexercising 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 undersection 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 thatright, he cannot ask the High Court to take up the matter in revision when the matter comes forhearing upon revision petition filed by the accused.

(a) Complaint case.-A person against whom a complaint has been made under section 340, has aright of appeal to a court superior to that which made the complaint and where such appeal is notmade, 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



















(d) Suo motu exercise of power not precluded.-Where three accused are convicted, in appeal bytwo of them conviction of all is found to be illegal, the appellate court sets aside sentence of two ofthe appealing accused but no order is passed for non-appealing accused and the non-appealingaccused brings the undisputed illegality to the notice of the High Court, even if the judgment andconviction by the trial court are appealable and the accused does not prefer an appeal, theprohibition 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 proceedingsare dropped by the court and on retirement of that public servant, a revision against order ofdropping 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 section401(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, assuch 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 inrevision only where the matter is brought before it by the party who could have appealed. It doesnot 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 ofrevision is limited only to those cases in which the High Court is asked to interfere "at the instanceof the party who could have appealed but has not done so". It leaves untouched the powers of theHigh Court to exercise its revisional powers in all cases where the records have been called for byitself 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 barto 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) frominterfering with the conviction of the accused who has not appealed where the matter comes beforeit 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 eventhough 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 Lah585, the High Court hearing a revision petition preferred by certain accused persons scrutinised theevidence to find out whether the convictions of the co-accused who were non co-operators andwho did not appeal to the lower appellate court were justified.

(c) Prevention of injustice.-Though, ordinarily, no revision would lie where the accused had anopportunity of appealing and has not exercised it, where the result of not allowing revision would beto sustain a long sentence of imprisonment for what the High Court views to be a small offencedeserving 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 fromexercising revisional jurisdiction in a fit case even if the accused does not wish the High Court tointerfere. Where the matter was unofficially brought to the notice of the court by an applicationmade by the father of the accused the Sind Court issued a notice under this section and consideredwhether the Magistrate committed any error of law in convicting the accused, observing that thefact 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 proceedingsbefore him or stated that he had nothing to say in defence should not prevent a revision from hisconviction from being heard. There is an obligation on the High Court to superintend and supervisethe subordinate criminal courts and to see that orders of conviction passed by such courts are notillegal 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















content with the order and does not wish to challenge it or because he had no objection to hisbeing prosecuted and convicted. However willing an accused may be to submit to the sentence andhowever reluctant he may be to move the High Court, it will have no hesitation in setting aside hisconviction if it was satisfied that the conviction was illegal. The High Court's acting in such a waywould not in any sense be derogatory to the dignity of the High Court. It would be upholding itsdignity and maintaining the high traditions of the High Court, if in spite of the accused'srefractoriness, 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 upholdan 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 holdinguniversity degrees and practising as lawyers and they do not appeal from the judgment convictingthem, 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 convictedunder section 117, I.P.C. read with section 9, Salt Act, by the first class Magistrate and the BarAssociation authorised the President to file a revision application to the High Court invoking itspowers under section 401 on the ground that the conviction was illegal, the proceedings by way ofrevision 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 anapplication in revision by an accused is barred, an application in revision by everyone else made athis instigation would be equally barred. The words "at the instance of the party who could haveappealed" 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.-Nodoubt the High Court can interfere on its own motion in cases where a person affected is debarredfrom moving it under sub-section (4). But in a case where the court has not acted of its ownmotion, in calling for the proceedings under section 397, but at the instance of the applicant, itwould 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 notlie as information and act suo motu. Even if it can be treated as information, this course should bereserved 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 appeal-Revision by him, if competent.-See Note under section 375, supra.

(viii) Order on appeal setting aside conviction for want of proper cognizance of offence-Revision by Government-If lies.-Where an appellate court sets aside a conviction and sentenceon the ground that the lower court had not taken cognizance of the offence in a report of a publicservant as required by rule 130 of the Defence of India Rules, and deliberately refrains fromrecording an order of acquittal the order of the appellate court is either an order of discharge suchas is contemplated by section 386(b) or an order of a kind not contemplated by the Code at all. It iscertainly 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 reasonto extend the scope of this section to include the sentence passed by Sessions Judges with the













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 competentto 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 theGovernment to move the High Court to enhance sentence but if the attention of the Government isnot drawn to a particular matter which requires attention, that is no reason why the High Courtshould 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 appealagainst inadequacy of sentence. That, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, however does notexclude 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 HighCourt 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 matterfor 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 toenhance 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 Themere circumstance that the accused has already been discharged from jail cannot be allowed tooperate 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.-ADistrict Magistrate, or a Sessions Judge, or the Government pleader may draw the attention of theHigh Court to a sentence with a view to its being enhanced or the High Court may of its own motionsend for the record and take action with a like object. As a matter of practice, an application by aprivate 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 theright 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 thepolicy 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, theNagpur High Court held that enhancement of sentence was a very serious proceeding and wherethere was a proposal to that effect, it must be supported by the Government pleader underinstructions 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 thisnature ought not to be encouraged at the instance of a private prosecutor, there is no absoluterule, 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 Thecourt 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 thedistrict 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 theSessions Judge, it is not intended by the Code that his only remedy is to apply to a DistrictMagistrate to move the State Government to apply for an enhancement, because the local





















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 publicinterest 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, thereis no reason why a complainant should be held to have no right to apply in revision for enhancementof 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 atinstance of private complainant.-Where a rule for enhancement of sentence is issued at theinstance of a private complainant, it is the duty of the High Court to go into the facts and ascertainfor 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 thereason that a rule is issued ex parte and matters have to be taken into consideration upon thehearing 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 forenhancement 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 aboutdeterrent sentence in lower court.-It is very undesirable to trust exclusively the powers of theHigh 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 bedeterrent, they ought to put before the trying court those circumstances on which they rely andthey 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 thecomplainant 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 difficultfor the State successfully to press the enhancement when its representative in the sessions courtappears 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 theaccused at any stage and the accused has not cared to appear before the High Court, sentencewould 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 actsas a court of revision in relation to enhancement of sentences are that it should not interfere withthe 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 correctmiscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of properprecautions or apparent harshness of treatment resulting in some injury to the maintenance of lawand order, or some undeserved hardship to individuals. In revision, power of enhancement ofsentence 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 HighCourt include enhancement of sentence, but not conversion of acquittal into conviction. Also HighCourt 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 well-settled that when that discretion has been properly exercised, an appellate court should notinterfere unless there are very strong reasons and in a case where the sentence cannot be said to

















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 Thequestion of sentence is always within the discretion of the court and ordinarily the sentence isdetermined only with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case unless indeed there is aliability 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 sentencedeclined to take into consideration the previous convictions of the accused pronounced out ofBritish India, it was held that in view of the fact that those convictions could not be made the basisof any charge under section 75, I.P.C., the evidence of these convictions could be admissible onlyas evidence of bad character and as there was no provision compelling a Magistrate to consider theantecedents of the accused before determining the sentence to be imposed upon him it could notbe said that the Magistrate acted illegally in the exercise of his discretion in declining to considerthose 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 thesentence 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 Preventionof Food Adulteration Act, the trial court should award the minimum sentence viz., imprisonment forsix months with fine not less than one thousand rupees, and if the trial court committed a manifesterror of law by imposing sentence of imprisonment only, sentence would be enhanced to include afine 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 inregard to imposition of minimum sentence, it will not interfere to enhance the sentence as when nouseful purpose will be served as the chances of apprehending the accused after lapse ofconsiderable 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 isconvicted and sentenced by the Magistrate, enhancement of the sentence acting on plea of guiltyin revision will not be reasonable, fair and just. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the revisionalcourt 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 section302, I.P.C., but lower court convicting accused under section 304, I.P.C.-State not filing appeal-

Good ground in revision for enhancement of sentence awarded under section 304, I.P.C.1091 Wherea public servant is proved to have taken bribes the High Court enhanced the sentence of simpleimprisonment and fine by the Sessions Judge on the application of the Government. The High Courtstated. "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 HighCourt 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 imprisonmentwas passed. On appeal the Sessions Judge maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence toa term of six months. On application to the High Court for enhancement of sentence, it was heldthat 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, thecircumstances of the case were such as to require substantial punishment. Where in a case undersection 324, I.P.C., the complainant was the aggressor and five months had elapsed since theconviction, 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 passeda 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 inrevision, the revisional powers being intended for the redress of genuine grievances and not of mere
















formal defects.1096

(xii) Enhancement of sentence of imprisonment for life.-The High Court has full authority toenhance 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 Courtfor enhancement of a sentence of imprisonment on a conviction for murder, the proper test to beapplied is whether the only sentence which could be passed on the evidence is a sentence ofdeath. There are many cases where Sessions Judges are too lenient in the exercise of the discretionvested 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, inimposing the lesser penalty, exercised the discretion which indisputably is vested in him, the HighCourt 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 Thefact 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 casewhere 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 viewthat, 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 theextreme penalty which he should have done as the crime was most atrocious in nature, the delayalone 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 sentenceof 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 lenientsentence in contravention of the rulings of law which are laid down from time to time for theguidance of those dealing with criminal cases, the High Court will interfere and will enhance thesentence. There are only two sentences for an offence of murder, (1) death and (2) imprisonmentfor life. If it appears to the High Court that the discretion in awarding sentence in a murder case hasbeen 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 Courtmust enhance the sentence in revision. It is recognised that a person who has even wrongly got thebenefit 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 forlife for the offence of murder though in fact death sentence ought to have been passed on him. Itwas, however, found that there was no absence of premeditation on the part of the accused tocommit the offence and three months had elapsed from the date of such sentence during which theaccused 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 theHigh 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 enhancementof sentence can only be exercised where the sentence passed is a legal one. A sentence ofimprisonment for the period already passed by the accused in the lock-up is not a legal sentenceand 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
















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 fromconviction pending before Sessions Judge.-The High Court, not aware of filing of appeal, callingfor 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 Noteunder 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 ofsentence 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 ofthe accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in hisown 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 madeagainst the accused without giving him an opportunity of being heard, in the court passing the orderand 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 opportunityof being heard, as for instance, where by mistake a case was posted on a day anterior to that fixedin the notice to the accused and the sentence was enhanced in his absence, is null and void abinitio, 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 orderunder section 360 and awarded imprisonment to the accused under the impression that the accusedwas 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 isnothing in section 401, which requires that when accused persons are already before the court bytheir advocate or pleader, it is nevertheless still incumbent upon the court to issue a notice to themto bring them before the court a second time as it were still less to invoke the machinery of thecourt in the way of issuing a rule calling upon them to show cause. Of course, if the advocate orpleader were to state that he wished to consult clients or to take further instructions, it would onlybe 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 toenhance the sentence, it is not necessary that a notice should be served on the accused. The lawdoes not require it, when the accused are already before the court represented by counsel who is inpossession 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 asentence of imprisonment for life has been imposed by the lower court on the main charge andinadequate sentence has been imposed as a matter of form on what seems to have been treated asa minor charge and the appellate court after hearing the appeal sets aside the sentence ofimprisonment for life, it is not necessary in those circumstances for the appellate court to issue afresh notice to the accused to show cause against the enhancement of the sentence passed on theminor 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.-Thejurisdiction of the High Court and its powers are provided for by article 225 of the Constitution. Theperusal of that Article necessitates the consideration of the provisions contained in section 223 ofthe Government of India Act, 1935 and section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915. Inpursuance of the power vested in the High Court by these provisions, rule 1 of Chapter V of therules of the Allahabad High Court has been made. On a consideration of the constitutional positionand rule 1, Chapter V of the rules, it is only the Chief Justice who has the right and power to decidewhich Judge is to sit alone and what cases such Judge can decide ; further, it is again for the ChiefJustice to determine which Judges shall constitute Division Benches. Any order which a Bench or asingle Judge may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them or him by the Chief














Justice or in accordance with his directions is an order without jurisdiction. Where in a criminal casein which the Bench of the High Court purported to make an order directing a notice to issue undersection 401 to an accused to show cause why his sentences should not be enhanced even thoughit was not a case that had been directed by the Chief Justice to be placed before that Bench fororder, 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 beheard by a single Judge and not by a Division Bench, except where a single Judge refers it to aDivision 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 thejudgments 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 onparticular grounds, the form of any rule granted would ordinarily be such as to leave the actionwhich the court should take in case the conviction is set aside, to the discretion of the court whichhears the rule. Where a rule was granted, "to show cause why the conviction should not be setaside 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 showcause why the appeal should not be re-heard by the District Judge, it is within the competence ofthe 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 itsrevisional powers at any stage of the proceedings, but it is not desirable that once the court hasalready 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 thelimited purpose of examining the order relating to forfeiture of article alone, it would not be open tothe 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 tomisjoinder, 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 ApplicationJudge only on the ground of sentence, the Judge hearing the revision is not bound by it and hasunrestricted right to hear the same on merits and not restrict the hearing exclusively to thequestion of sentence only. Though an order admitting a revision only on the question of sentenceshould as a rule be respected, it is only in exceptional cases where compelling reasons are placedbefore 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 ofan order passed by a Magistrate rejecting an application of the complainant under section 302, tobe 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 suchan opportunity, it is not necessary that the State should be formally impleaded as a party to theproceeding and that notice of rule should be served upon the Legal Remembrancer of the State. It isenough if the court directs issue of the rule on the District Magistrate. It is in fact an invariablepractice of the Calcutta High Court to issue a rule on all applications for revision under section 401on the District Magistrate of the district, in addition to the private party, whether complainant oraccused named as opposite party in the application. This is done for the very good reason that theDistrict Magistrate represents the State in all such matters. The rule is not issued on the DistrictMagistrate only as a post office between the High Court and the trying court. When a rule is issuedon the District Magistrate, he does inform the trying court of the same and very often forwards to













the High Court any observations and explanations that may be submitted by the trial court. But thatis only a part of his duty. It is equally his duty to decide whether the State should be represented inthe 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 bythe 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 Courtto Magistrates below for the purpose of ascertaining what they have to say regarding theallegations made in the petitions ; and it is the duty of the Magistrate below to peruse the petitionsand either give the necessary explanation regarding the points raised or to state at least that theyhave nothing to add to what is already contained in their judgments under revision. There must besomething 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 inanswer 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 notcontain the findings necessary for a conviction, but a Magistrate explained his judgment in a letteror 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 passagestouches the fabric of the judgment itself or is calculated to affect the conclusions of the Magistrateor Judge, the proper procedure is to issue notice to the parties and to deal with the case as awhole in revision, expunging the remarks if it is thought proper, either in the exercise of the HighCourt's revisional powers under section 401, read with section 386(e) or under section 482. It is nothowever, 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 andwith the documents in support. The court will not send for the record unless there is sufficientmaterial 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 inthe rules of the Patna High Court under which a reference can be made by a single Judge to aDivision 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 readwith 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 iswith 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 notcompetent to restore to its original number the criminal revision petition dismissed for default. Incases of criminal revision no distinction can be made between an order passed without hearing thepetitioner 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 isdismissed 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 toorder 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 acriminal revision petition presented to the High Court is dismissed for non-payment of printingcharges, it is a final disposal and it is not open to the party to file a fresh petition in the same


















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 criminalrevision 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 acriminal revision petition is not in order is no ground for rejecting it on the ground that the affidavitin support of it is sworn to by the accused himself in contravention of the rules. Once the case hascome 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 caseonly 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.-Itis a well-established practice of the Patna High Court and also of the Allahabad High Court not toentertain an application in criminal revision against an order of conviction in which a sentence ofimprisonment 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 provisionsof section 170(1). Accused moving Sessions Judge under sections 397 and 399 for making referenceto High Court against order of Magistrate-Preliminary objection that since accused had notsurrendered before Magistrate he was not entitled to move Sessions Judge for making reference-Objection overruled because the police had not yet submitted any charge-sheet against theaccused and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Magistrate to direct the issue of processagainst 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 appearmust 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 theexpiry of sixty days from the date of the decision or order impugned. When an application is made tothe Sessions Judge beyond or even within the period of sixty days, a further period does notbecome available to the applicant from the date when the Sessions Judge refuses to make areference. The period of sixty days is intended to cover also proceedings of normal length beforethe Sessions Judge, and it will not ordinarily be extended because the applicant negligently ordeliberately delayed to move the Sessions Judge till the period has nearly expired nor in any casebeyond the period occupied in the Sessions Court. In all cases the applicant must come to the HighCourt 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 notnecessary for the court to prescribe any hard and fast rule but the court should not as a matter ofpractice admit applications for revision unless it is satisfied that they are made within a reasonabletime which would appear to be the time granted by statute for admitting appeals. When anapplication for revision has been made after the expiry of the period allowed for an appeal it isproper 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 AllahabadHigh 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 107are expected to do so with the utmost promptitude and certainty within 30 days of the order

against which they complain.1156















Though there is no limitation prescribed for revision, the practice of the Madras High Court isregulated by rule 185 of the Criminal Rules of Practice requiring an application to excuse delay if arevision 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 theHigh Court exercises suo motu revisional power, the same cannot be denied on the ground thatthere 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 itsdiscretionary 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 discretionaryand where the rule of the court is that revision applications are not admitted unless presentedwithin 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 wherethe 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 improperorder of the lower court allows the accused to escape trial, it will not be allowed to stand on themere 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, mightbe 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 hasexpired, the High Court may in exceptional circumstances interfere with the Magistrate's order inexercise of its wide power under section 401. However, power will not be exercised on a party'sapplication, 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 limitationprescribed 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 ispassed 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 wronglypassed under section 249 and in fact it is an order under section 256 and only an appeal lay againstthe 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 asupervisory 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).





















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 : AIR1947 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 viewtaken 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 1939Sind 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 nobar to H. C. exercising its revisional jurisdiction for correcting an error that had crept in order ofMagistrate).

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 Sunday-Plea 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).



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 ; AIR1925 Mad 375 ; 89 IC 388 (N) ; 71 IC 602 (O) ; AIR 1925 Pat 165 ; 33 CWN 576 ; 28 MLJ 690 ; 229IC 620 : 48 Cr LJ 473 (A mere defect in the judgment of lower court will not justify H. C. in settingaside 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 ofthe Code), the Calcutta High Court set aside an order of conviction on the ground that theMagistrate 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.



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 asummons case-Court issuing bailable warrant to compel complainant's appearance-Order is illegal-High 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 Sind315 ; 1959 ALJ 293 : AIR 1959 All 511 (Failure of medical witness to appear for cross-examination-Nothing 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.



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).



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, 1999Cr 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.



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 ; 1953ALJ 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).



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 1961All 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 SC1530.

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 onthe 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).



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 setaside.

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 ; 50All 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 theacquittal by the Government). In 7 Pat 579, the Patna High Court took up the case of a man whohad been acquitted and altered the order of acquittal into a conviction on a reference by theSessions 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 appearsto 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 :



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) 1MLJ 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).



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 ofillegal encroachment on municipal land-Conviction under wrong number of bye-law-High Court canchange 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 thesentences do not exceed those passed by the lower appellate court) ; 55 Bom LR 937 (Accusedconvicted for offences under sections 4(a) and 5, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act andsentenced to 3 month's RI in respect of offence under section 4(a), but no separate sentencepassed in respect of latter offence. In revision against his convictions, High Court can set asideconviction under section 4(a), but maintain his conviction under section 5 and impose a sentence of3 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 (Alterationof finding under section 323 to one under section 325, I.P.C.). But See contra AIR 1941 Cal 90 : 42Cr LJ 383 (High Court has no power to alter a conviction under section 323 to one under section325, I.P.C.).

344. 7 Luck 102 : AIR 1931 Oudh 274 ; AIR 1935 Pesh 67 : 36 Cr LJ 1438 (Conviction undersections 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.



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 1926Nag 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 in44 All 332 was followed. The matter is now set at rest by the decision of the Privy Council in 50 All722 : AIR 1928 PC 254.

356. 37 Cr LJ 1039 : AIR 1936 Pesh 172 ; ILR (1939) Kant 75 : AIR 1938 Sind 202 (Bar in sub-section (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 1939Rang 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 lesserpenalty 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 onconsideration 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).



382. (1964) 2 Andh WR 152 : AIR 1964 AP 449 ; 1963 (1) Cr LJ 371 (Mani) (The Sessions Judge notaware of exercise of previous sentence against accused-Fit case where High Court should interfereand direct that sentence passed should run concurrently with previous sentence). See also Note 8to 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).



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. NikhilBandhu 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 thefinding that the dispossession is wrongful as well held to be only a formal defect and to avoid delaya harassment to party case not remitted to the Magistrate to rectify the defect and High Courtitself on evidence on record that it was so. Another omission of the Magistrate is to add in the orderthat 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 theHigh 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).



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).



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 tothe 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. TheJudicial Commissioner's Court of Ajmer has adopted the view taken in 1 Rang 632. See AIR 1951Ajmer 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 : AIR1928 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 ofdiscretion).



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) readwith section 401 does not authorise the High Court, in revision, to award costs of the proceedingbefore it) : AIR 1959 Pat 151 (A successful party is not entitled under section 148(3) to get thecosts 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 thatsection.

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).



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 WR565 : 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 NLJ119 : 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 1951Assam 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 ofdefending his own person and property). See also AIR 1933 Raj 297 : 35 Cr LJ 52 ; 57 Bom 690 : AIR1933 Bom 409 : 27 SLR 214 : AIR 1933 Sind 196 : AIR 1934 Lah 434 : 36 Cr LJ 20 ; 40 PLR 776. Butthe fact that the case against the accused is a weak one is no ground for quashing the charge inrevision : 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 1930Lah 881 ; 10 Pat 596 : AIR 1931 Pat 140 ; AIR 1933 Sind 169 ; ILR (1953) Hyd 753 : AIR 1942 Rang48.

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 andonly 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.



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 chargequashed.

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 consideronly 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 toimplement invalid award by Industrial Tribunal can be quashed).

613. ILR (1946) Kant 285 : AIR 1947 Sind 68 ; AIR 1954 Hyd 129 (FB) (Section authorisesinterference on ground of harassment of accused by unjustified application of illegal procedure). In17 LW 69 the High Court declined to quash proceedings instituted in a court without jurisdiction, butdirected 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.



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 (Factsproved 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, 1975Cr 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 notadopted the procedure prescribed by law but has followed a procedure of its own) : AIR 1935 Mad257 (2) : 68 MLJ 282 : 58 Mad 430. It is very unusual for the High Court to hold up a preliminaryenquiry 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 wherethere is absolute paucity of evidence in support of the charge framed that a charge can and will bequashed).

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.



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 sufficientattention 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 offact).

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 isits duty, if the ends of justice require to go into facts).



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 notedabove.

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) ; BalkrishnaPandurang 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 1933Oudh 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 (Lowercourts 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 notexplained 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, beforedeclaring 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.



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 JathvedanNamboodiri, 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 MadLJ (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 (Meremisappreciation 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 overMagistrate'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.



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 factsupported by one set of witnesses need not be disturbed in revision merely because evidence ofother 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 andAIR 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 OWN47 : AIR 1933 Oudh 195 ; 34 Cr LJ 793 ; AIR 1935 Sind 105 : 36 Cr LJ 464 ; 1950 ALJ 764 : AIR 1950All 507 (Bribery cases) ; AIR 1952 Kutch 4 ; AIR 1952 Kutch 24 ; AIR 1952 Kutch 91 ; AIR 1953Kutch 1 ; AIR 1954 Kutch 33 ; AIR 1955 Kutch 1 ; AIR 1955 Bhopal 17 ; AIR 1956 Bhopal 14 ; AIR1955 Raj 195 ; AIR 1955 Sau 39 ; AIR 1955 AP 59 ; AIR 1952 Trip 6 ; AIR 1952 Ajmer 45 (1) : AIR1952 HP & Bom 27 ; 1952 ALJ 392 : ILR (1953) Hyd 529 ; AIR 1953 Hyd 303 ; 1960 Cr LJ 258 : AIR1960 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 LJ507 (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 (Whenthe lower appellate court has not given reasons for its findings it may not be possible for High Courtto adhere to the general rule ; AIR 1954 HP 21 : AIR 1956 All 297 ; AIR 1956 Sau 25 (High Court willnot permit a simple question of fact to be agitated) ; AIR 1957 Mad 405 ; (High Court will notdetermine disputed questions of fact).

776. Goura Chandra Naik v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 275 (Ori) ; T. H. Suresh v. Food Inspector, 1989 Cr LJ2550 (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).



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 goodmaterial) ; 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 interfereunless 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 entitleHigh Court to interfere).

815. Keshav Gangaram Prabhu Mhambrey, 1969 Cr LJ 609 (Goa).



816. 45 All 656 (661), approving observations of Piggot, J., in 36 All 403 (405) ; 1944 ALJ 419 : AIR1944 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 somanifestly erroneous that a miscarriage of justice would result from its remaining uncorrected) ; AIR1951 Assam 151 : 52 Cr LJ 1457 (Unless the finding of fact is based on inadmissible evidence or it isotherwise manifestly erroneous) ; AIR 1952 Ajmer 17 ; AIR 1954 All 758 : 1954 Cr LJ 1581 (Unlessthere was no evidence to support the finding or the evidence was so bad that no reasonable personcould act upon it) ; AIR 1959 Trip 49 (unless on the evidence it was not reasonably possible for thelower courts to come to the findings which they reached) ; AIR 1964 AP 226 (Unless the view of thelower court is unreasonable or wholly unwarranted by material on record) ; 1959 Ker LT 945 : AIR1960 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 isevident that the courts below have not really approached the case with either a clear appreciationof the issue involved, or a clear understanding of the principles of criminal law, the High Court isentitled to interfere) ; (1963) 1 MLJ 418 : (1963) MLJ (Cri) 266 (Where the lower court hasmisunderstood the scope of enquiry under section 139-A, the High Court will set right the illegalityand 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 hasbeen 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 onthe 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 (Questionwhether 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 1960Mad 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 section147) : 1948 AMLJ 19 (Finding of non-existence of dispute likely to cause breach of peace inproceeding 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.



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 : AIR1961 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 notcapable 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.



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 ofprinciple) ; 8 Raj 663 : AIR 1931 Raj 94 (High Court should interfere only where it is urgentlydemanded in the interests of public justice) ; 1940 OWN 757 : AIR 1941 Ori 7 ; 22 PLT 327 : AIR1941 Pat 362 ; 17 Luck 663 : AIR 1942 Ori 318 (The chief court will interfere where there has beenmiscarriage of justice) ; 1942 OWN 432 : AIR 1942 Oudh 443 ; ILR (1944) Nag 176 : AIR 1944 Nag136 ; ILR (1944) Bom 302 : AIR 1944 Bom 107 (FB) ; (1945) 1 MLJ 183 : AIR 1945 Mad 240 ; 1948ALJ 511 : AIR 1949 All 264 ; 1950 ALJ 329 : AIR 1950 All 42 ; AIR 1950 Ajmer 32 (2) and 35 (1) ; AIR1956 Trip 2.

879. AIR 1936 Raj 247 : 37 Cr LJ 832. See also 23 NLR 40 ; 115 IC 169 : AIR 1929 Nag 87 ; 6 CPLR154 ; 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 LJ1566 (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 : AIR1955 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 1958Punj 228 ; 1960 Ker LT 777 ; AIR 1963 J&K 39 ; 67 CWN 1029 ; 1964 (2) Cr LJ 711 : AIR 1964 Pat



561.

903. 1963 (1) Cr LJ 8 : AIR 1962 SC 1788. This case was followed in 1964 (2) Cr LJ 74 (SC) ; NandKishore Panigrahi v. Meyadhar Nayak, 1968 Cr LJ 333 (Ori) ; Ajib Jolly v. Chandramani Dalal, 1973 CrLJ 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 LJ1896 : 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 (Misreadingevidence of a witness) ; AIR 1954 SC 266 (Jurisdiction of High Court is not ordinarily invoked or usedmerely 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 ofconviction, in effect, would mean an implied prohibition to impugn the correctness of inferencesdrawn 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 ; 10Luck 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.



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 (Wheretrial 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 whereto allow the case to stand would be to allow a very bad precedent). See also 2 LW 1244 : 32 IC129.

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 interferenceobligatory in all casesection Where serious or substantial injustice is caused by an error of law, theorder 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).



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 undersection 182, I.P.C., registered on report of police officer as public servant-Acquittal on default inappearance 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 All461 ; 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 Lah214 ; Per Iqbal Ahmed, C.J., in 1944 ALJ 203 : 1944 All 137 (FB) ; 1961 Ker LT 1088 : 1962 (2) Cr LJ427.

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 LJ804 which held that in such a revision even a retrial could be ordered though care had to be takennot 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 asideand 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.



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 : AIR1959 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 BomLR 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 appealunder section 476-B, objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint couldnot be raised in revision against the conviction). Where the accused on a trial by a PresidencyMagistrate was sentenced to a fine of more than Rs. 200, no revision can be entertained againstthe 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).



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 Sau129 : 1954 Cr LJ 1553 (Such powers should be exercised in rare cases of palpable or gross errorsrequiring 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 Cal902 : 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 theHigh Court stated that though it would interfere and reduce a sentence in revision even if theconvicted person fails to exercise his right of appeal and does not himself move the court inrevision, and the application is made by a third party, where the convicted person has insuperabledifficulties 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 receiveinformation 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 canenhance such sentence up to the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the offence, eventhough it may exceed the sentence that can be passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge). To thesame 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



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 1928Pat 201 ; AIR 1945 Oudh 215 : 47 Cr LJ 2 (Application for enhancement of sentence filed whensentence 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 Nag249 (Only in a very extraordinary case the High Court would enhance a sentence on the applicationof 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 Cal964 (967) ; 114 IC 442 : AIR 1929 Lah 531 ; 8 Raj 578 : AIR 1931 Rang 52 (Complainant applied forenhancement).

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 Lah199 : 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 CrLJ 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 IC757 (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 : 1938Cr LJ 720 ; ILR (1938) Lah 347 : AIR 1938 Lah 260 ; 44 PLR 167 ; AIR 1951 Pepsu 73 ; AIR 1942Rang 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



920 ; AIR 1961 Kerala 175 : 1961 Ker LT 144 ; 1961 Ker LT 362 : 1962 (1) Cr LJ 652 ; 1962 (2) Cr LJ710 (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 IC218.

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 Magistratetrying the case might have imposed the capital sentence is not a sufficient reason forenhancement).

1100. (1940) 2 MLJ 895.

1101. 1953 Cr LJ 1803 : AIR 1953 TC 561 ; AIR 1954 SC 714 (Revision by complainant-Enhancementof 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 whetherthe discretionary power under section 401(1) can be exercised in a case in which the sentence ismanifestly illegal). But see ILR (1949) All 484 : AIR 1949 All 213 (Where the sentence of fine is illegaland 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 anorder 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.



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 orreview 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.



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 revisioncase against the acquittal of the accused may be disposed of without giving notice to theaccused).

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 thedelay, 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 1954Sau 62 (Reference for enhancement of sentence after a lapse of time-Delay due to conduct ofaccused-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).



P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Code of Criminal Procedure, Seventh Edition

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer : The views and comments expressed in the present category are those of the Author. These should not be taken toreflect the views of the organisation. Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd. expressly disclaims all responsibilityfor any loss, injury, liability or damage of any kind resulting from and arising out of, or any way related to theContent.

anuj

Documents

lower court

wherethe court

provisions of section

revision petition

revision hasbeen

certain order

interests of justice

failure of justice