Key Legal Principles for Session Judges in Criminal Revision
1. Scope and Nature of Revisional Jurisdiction
-
Sessions Judges derive their revisional powers primarily from Sections 397 to 401 of the CrPC. These allow a review of records of inferior criminal courts for legality, propriety, or correctness of any finding, sentence, or order.
-
The revisional jurisdiction is meant to correct manifest errors, jurisdictional mistakes, or violations of law, not to conduct a full-fledged re-hearing on facts. It is to be used sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice.
2. Limitations on Revisional Powers
-
The power is not limitless. For example, a Sessions Judge (as with the High Court) cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. This is explicitly barred under Section 401(3) CrPC.
-
Revisional powers cannot be used to quash proceedings entirely—that power lies solely with the High Court under Section 482.
-
If an appeal lies and is not filed, revision cannot be generally entertained by the revisional court (Section 401(4)).
3. Principles of Natural Justice
-
No revisional order should prejudice the accused or any party without giving them an opportunity to be heard, in person or through counsel.
-
Courts must adhere to fairness and impartiality, ensuring decisions are made according to law and evidence.
4. Grounds for Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction
A Sessions Judge should invoke revisional powers on grounds such as:
-
Wrongful exclusion of crucial evidence by a lower court.
-
Decision based on inadmissible evidence.
-
Lack of jurisdiction by the trial court.
-
Overlooking of material evidence or reliance on irrelevant evidence by lower courts.
-
Orders based on illegal compounding of offences.
5. Concurrent Revisional Powers
-
Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court have concurrent revisional powers over subordinate courts. However, once a Sessions Judge has decided a revision, the same issue cannot be raised again before the High Court by the same party.
Landmark Judgments Explaining These Principles
Supreme Court
Mahabir v. State of Haryana (2025)
-
Reiterated that a revisional court cannot convert an acquittal into conviction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the only course open in truly exceptional cases is to order a retrial, not direct conviction under revision.
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 650
-
Held that the revisional court has no authority to re-appreciate evidence and convert acquittal into conviction, stressing the limited powers under Section 401(3).
Other Principles from Supreme Court:
-
Outlined grounds for revision: wrongful exclusion of evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, lack of jurisdiction, or material legal errors.
Bombay High Court
Ramgopal Ganpatrani Ruia v. State of Bombay
-
Affirmed that Session Judges have co-extensive revisional powers with High Courts under Section 399, but clarified that these do not extend to converting an acquittal to conviction or quashing proceedings entirely.
Puvvula Abbulu v. The State (1975)
-
Clarified that the Sessions Judge, in revision, cannot exercise appellate powers in cases where an appeal would lie to the High Court; powers must be interpreted within statutory limits.
Conclusion
A Sessions Judge should exercise revisional powers judiciously, intervene only in cases of manifest injustice or illegality, and must not convert acquittals into convictions. The process must strictly observe principles of natural justice and comply with the procedural limitations enshrined in the CrPC and interpreted by landmark Supreme Court and High Court judgments.