Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction : 15 Important Supreme Court Judgments

1. Amur Chand Agrawal v. Shanti Bose, AIR 1973 SC 799

The revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

2. State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979 SC 663 

Judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system. 

3. Akalu Aheer v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145

The power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly.

4. Pathumma v. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC 1436

High Court "committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact". 

5. Bansi Lal v. Laxman Singh, AIR 1986 SC 1721 

It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a re-trial of the accused. Even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope.

6. Ramu @ Ram Kumar v. Jagannath, AIR 1991 SC 26 

Hon'ble Supreme court cautioned the revisional Courts not to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant. 

7. State of Karnataka v. Appu Balu, AIR 1993 SC 1126

In exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. 

8. Ramu @ Ram Kumar v. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 26 

It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint.

9. Kaptan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 2485

Revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice".

10. State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452

In Its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 

11. State of A.P. v. Rajagopala Rao, (2000) 10 SCC 338

The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment.

12. Chinnaswami v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788

The High Court would be justified to interfere with an order of acquittal if the trial court has wrongly shut out the evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce.

13. Mahendra Pratap v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707

In setting aside an acquittal in a revision and ordering a retrial, there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of acquittal or a gross miscarriage of justice. An interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place, if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court has no jurisdiction to court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempt to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the list given is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an an, acuital in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court.

14. P.N.G. Raju v. B.P. Appadu, AIR 1975 SC 1854 

The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has not appreciated the evidence properly.

15. Ayodhya v. Ram Sumer Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1415

The Criminal Justice System does not admit of 'pigeon-holing'. Life and the Law do not fall neatly into slots. When a Court starts laying down rules enumerated (1), (2), (3), (4) or (a), (b), (c), (d), it is arranging for itself traps and pitfalls. Categories, classifications and compartments, which statute does not mention, all tend to make law 'less flexible, less sensible and less just'.