Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has restated the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Courts under Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is limited and it cannot be put to use for reversing the conclusions reached by the courts below.

What is the Background of this News?

• The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 14^th February 2009.
• After marriage the respondent started harassing the petitioner mentally and physically on her domestic working style and also insisted her to leave her service.
• It is further alleged that they also demanded dowry of Rs.20.00 lakhs and also caused injury for not fulfilling their demand of dowry.
• The police had lodged the First Information Report (FIR) against the respondent under Section 498-A, Section 323, Section 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.
• Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, which was later dismissed.
• Thereafter the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
• The High Court dismissed the petition and the orders of acquittal made by the lower courts were affirmed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 401 CrPC is limited, and it cannot be put to use for reversing the conclusions reached by the courts below it.
• The Court also noted that the High Court cannot remand back a case to the trial court unless there is manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice in the judgment rendered by the trial court as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Kaptan Singh and others v. State of M.P & Anr. (1997).
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that the revisional power of the High Court while sitting in judgment over and order of acquittal should not be exercised unless there exists a manifest illegality in the judgment or order of acquittal or there is grave miscarriage of justice.
  • The Court further concluded that the High Court could proceed like an appeal court does only when the situation envisaged in Section 401(5) of CrPC presents itself.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?
Section 401, CrPC

• This section deals with the High Court' s Powers of revisions. It states that-
  • (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
  • (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
  • (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
  • (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
  • (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice.
• In the State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) case, the Supreme Court held that 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 the Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a 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.