Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court, while exercising its revision jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC) (now Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS), cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction. Instead, if the High Court finds the acquittal erroneous, it should remand the case to the appellate court for re-appreciation. This ruling followed a case where the High Court overturned an acquittal in a cheque dishonor matter without remanding it for further review. 

• Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held in C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas. 

What was the Background of C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas ? 

• The complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging cheque dishonor. 
• The trial court convicted the accused (appellant) based on the complaint. 
• On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and acquitted the accused. 
• The complainant (respondent) filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court challenging the acquittal. 
• The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CrPC.(now Section 442 of BNSS), reversed the appellate court's acquittal and convicted the accused. 
• The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's authority to convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional powers. 
• The case before the Supreme Court centered on the interpretation and application of Section 401(3) CrPC (now Section 442(3) of BNSS), which defines the scope of the High Court's revisional powers in criminal matters. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court, while exercising criminal revision jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC (now Section 442 of BNSS), cannot convert a decision of acquittal to conviction. 
• Section 442(3) of BNSS [analogous to Section 401(3) CrPC] explicitly prohibits the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its revisional power. 
• The approach adopted by the High Court in reversing the acquittal and ordering conviction was deemed improper and unsustainable. 
• If the High Court was convinced of a wrongful acquittal, the appropriate course of action would have been to remit the matter back to the appellate court for re-appreciation, rather than directly ordering conviction. 
• The High Court's failure to adopt the correct procedural course rendered its decision untenable in law. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the merits of conviction or acquittal were not the issue before it; rather, the focus was on the proper exercise of revisional powers by the High Court. 
• The Court observed that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited and must be exercised within the statutory framework provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

What is Revision Jurisdiction (According to CrPC)? 

• Revisional jurisdiction is a supervisory power exercised by the High Court and Sessions Judge under Sections 399 and 401 of CrPC. 
• The scope of revisional jurisdiction is broad, allowing the court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and the regularity of proceedings in subordinate courts. 
• High Courts and Sessions Judges possess concurrent and co-extensive revisional jurisdiction over subordinate criminal courts within their respective territorial jurisdictions. 
• Section 397(3) explicitly bars the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by one court if the other has already exercised it on the same subject matter. 
• Revisional powers are subject to statutory limitations, including:  
  • a) Prohibition on revising interlocutory orders (Section 397(2)). 
  • b) Restriction on filing multiple revision applications by the same person (Section 397(3)). 
  • c) Mandatory hearing of the accused or affected person before passing adverse orders (Section 401(2)). 
  • d) Prohibition on converting acquittals into convictions (Section 401(3)). 
  • e) Bar on revision proceedings when an appeal was available but not pursued (Section 401(4)). 
• The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and typically limited to questions of law or cases involving perverse findings. 
• Revisional courts are generally not empowered to re-appreciate evidence, except in cases of glaring defects in procedure or manifest errors of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. 
• Section 401(1) allows revisional courts to exercise powers of appellate courts (under Section 386) for the limited purpose of ensuring correctness, legality, or propriety of lower court decisions. 
• High Courts retain the power to enhance sentences in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction, despite the provision for state appeals against inadequate sentences under Section 377. 
• Interference with acquittals in revision is permissible in specific circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction, wrongful exclusion of evidence, overlooking material evidence, or invalid compounding of offences. 
• The term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused, and orders substantially affecting rights or deciding important issues are not considered purely interlocutory. 
• Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked suo motu by the court or at the instance of third parties, as the statutory power vests with the court regardless of who brings the matter to its attention. 
• Criminal revisions, like criminal appeals, cannot be dismissed for default or want of prosecution, as established in case law. 
• There is a split in judicial opinion regarding whether Sessions Judges can enhance sentences in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction, with some High Courts allowing it and others opposing the practice. 

What is Section 442 of BNSS?

• Section 442 of BNSS deals with the power of the High Court to withdraw or transfer revision cases (under Section 401 of CrPC.)  
• The High Court possesses discretionary revisional powers over proceedings, whether called for by itself or otherwise coming to its knowledge. 
• In exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court may utilize powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 427, 430, 431 and 432, or on a Court of Session by section 344. 
• When Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of as per the procedure outlined in section 433. 
• No order under this section can be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person without providing them with an opportunity of being heard, either personally or through an advocate. 
• The High Court is expressly prohibited from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its revisional powers. 
• Revision proceedings cannot be entertained at the instance of a party who had the right to appeal but did not exercise it. 
• The High Court has the discretion to treat an application for revision as a petition of appeal if it is satisfied that the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies, and that such treatment is necessary in the interests of justice. 
• This provision allows the High Court to rectify procedural mistakes made by parties in good faith, ensuring that substantive justice is not defeated by technical errors. 
• The section maintains the hierarchical structure of the criminal justice system by preventing the revisional jurisdiction from superseding the appellate process.