Revision under CrPC 1973

Revision under CrPC, 1973: All You Need to Know

This article on ‘Revision under CrPC, 1973: All you need to know‘ was written by Anam Shaikh, an intern at Legal Upanishad.


The processes involved in the criminal justice system can have a huge impact on the lives of those involved, especially the rights guaranteed to the people under the Indian constitution such as the right to life and individual liberties. Considering this need too and avoid the failure of the justice system, the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 developed various provisions. Articles 372 to 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code deal with the provisions regarding the appeal.

To prevent the aggrieved party from being left with fewer claims, the legislators incorporated the concept of reconsideration under the Criminal Procedure Code, known as the “Amendment” which was provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code. Code to maintain supremacy. The goal of the entire judicial system is to provide justice. Sections 397 to 405 of the Code include provisions concerning the revised jurisdiction granted to superior courts and the procedure by which superior courts exercise jurisdiction guaranteed to them.

What is Revision?

The term ‘review’ is not defined in the CrPC 1973 but under Section 397 it provides that the High Court or any judge of the session is empowered to request or examine the records of any proceedings. proceedings to meet the following conditions –

To verify the correctness, legality, or correctness of any discovery, award, or order, whether recorded or made.

To examine proceedings in a lower court for any penalty or any order in a reasonably specific manner. These are not the only rights, but it is also possible to exercise the right to order the accused to be released on bail or to bail himself if the accused is in custody. Furthermore, they can also order investigations with certain limitations and the main purpose behind granting these powers to the appellate courts is to prevent any wrongdoing by the Courts or the courts. judge.

Certain provisions were added to the Civil Procedure Act of 1908 and the Criminal Procedure Act of 1973 to review the decisions and judgments of the lower courts, the High Court, and the opportunity for a legacy of justice. As this aspect of the judiciary is implemented, the provisions of appeal, review, review, and reference will be incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Code, allowing an injured party to apply to a higher court to challenge or review an existing judgment or a lower court decision. These aspects are discussed in detail within CrPC.

Grounds for revision

  • Chapter XXX, Section 397 to Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the provision of Revision.
  • Civil Revision & ● Criminal Revision are the two major grounds for revisions
  • When a subordinate court exercises a jurisdiction, i.e., not vested in it by law
  • When a subordinate court fails to exercise its rightful jurisdiction as vested in it by Law
  • The subordinate court acts illegally or with material irregularity while exercising its jurisdiction
  • The power of revision shall not be exercised in case of the interlocutory or interim order passed in appeal, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings.
  • The High Court or Sessions Judge shall not interest an application for revision by a person who has previously applied for the same in either of them.

Conditions For Reference Under Section 395

  • The case should be pending before the court
  • The case should necessarily involve a question of law
  • The law which is in question must be in the form of an Act, ordinance, or regulation
  • The courts must believe that the law in question is invalid

Revision Procedure

Even the court has the power to initiate a review through Suo Moto or if the aggrieved party files a lawsuit within the set statute of limitations. But it should be noted that a court can only exercise its jurisdiction when a lower court has failed to exercise its lawful jurisdiction or has abused or extended its jurisdiction. Once the petition is reviewed and authorized by the Court’s decision (likely, the petition will also be dismissed), the error of jurisdiction will be corrected and the order reviewed and grounded. for review.

In the case of a civil action for reconsideration, the case is not extenuated as the plaintiff dies and the final order goes to the name of the legal representative of the plaintiff.

Revision under CrPC 1973
Revision under CrPC, 1973


There are certain cases in which there is no right to appeal. The legislators bore this in mind and incorporated the concept of review procedure called revision in the legislature to completely avoid any miscarriage of justice for even those cases where the right of appeal has been barred by law, this needs to be looked into by the supreme powers of India.

The legislature should accept certain degrees of interlocutory order for revision, because they may be temporary in nature they might affect the civilian’s life in a certain manner.


In the landmark judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. the Supreme Court of India held that “the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only when the impugned decisions are grossly erroneous and there has been no compliance to the provisions of the law in those judgments and the findings recorded are based on no evidence, the material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.”

The appeals process gives you the right to go to court and allows the court to check facts or errors of law to achieve justice. However, only a judgment, order, or sentence issued by the criminal court may be appealed to the court stipulated in the Act. Accordingly, the right of appeal can only be exercised under the Code of Criminal Procedure or other applicable law and is therefore at the discretion of the court in which the appeal is lodged and cannot be claimed under law.

In some cases, no appeal is allowed at all, and in fact, the decision, judgment, or sentence of the criminal court takes effect. All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for this sub-section and of section 398.