The revisional powers of High Court are entirely discretionary and very wide and no form of judicial injustice is beyond their reach.
(ii) Restrictions on invoking the revisional powers:
The High Court can exercise its revisional powers on its own initiative, or on the petition of any aggrieved party or even on the application of any other person. However, there are two limitations:
(i) According to Section 399(3) of the Code, where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of the same person shall be entertained by the High Court.
(ii) As per Section 401(4) of the Code, in a case, where 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.
These two restrictions apply only in cases where the High Court’s revisional powers are invoked by any aggrieved party, but do not apply when the High Court acts suo motu. The High Court, as an effective instrument for administration of criminal justice, keeps a constant vigil and wherever it finds that justice has suffered, it takes upon itself as its bounded duty to suo motu act where there is flagrant abuse of law.
Power of Courts of revision:
A Court of revision is concerned not only with the legality of the proceeding before the lower Court, but also with the propriety of the order passed under the particular circumstances of the case and in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Court can interfere with the findings if the same are contrary to the materials available on, record and are otherwise perverse.
Powers of Sessions Judge to enhance the sentence:
Sessions Judge could exercise all or any of the powers which could be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401, Cr.P.C. Sessions Judge had got ample power as the revisional Court to enhance the sentence in a revision preferred by the complainant or the interested party, even though the State was the competent party but had not filed an appeal.
No permissibility of revision against acquittal:
Mere possibility of another view on appreciation of evidence could be no ground to warrant interference in a complainant’s revision petition against acquittal. As such, the revision petition was dismissed.
Consequence of absence of report of Central Food Laboratory:
Where there was prosecution for alleged adulteration of food article. It was found by the report of public analyst that sample was below the prescribed standard. Held, that in the absence of report from Central Food Laboratory due to sample being not fit for analysis, it amounted to no evidence in case and continuation of trial was futile exercise. As such, the charge was liable to be quashed.
Evidence has to be assessed as a whole and then conclusion has to be drawn:
Where revision petition was filed against order granting alimony. Conclusion was that petitioner wife was at fault in doing domestic work. Held, that Court must ñî-relate the things for the purpose of drawing appropriate inference. One or two things could not allow a prudent person to draw an inference positively or in a negative way. Evidence has to be assessed as a whole and then conclusion has to be drawn.
Revision filed against order granting maintenance not maintainable:
Selfishness may go to any extent and on number of occasions may surpass reasonability. Therefore, on account of big sum, ‘ petitioner should not be stamped as a liar. Normally, when the parties go to litigation, they go on adding to their statements with exaggeration so as to make their case appealable.
These spouses are coming from lower state of the society, therefore, they are prone to go for exaggeration. Same would be the case in respect of their advocates and witnesses also, who try to support their side. Therefore, it was not proper and legal to pick solitary statement and to stamp the petitioner as a liar and to rule out her evidence on other aspects of her case.
Revision for appeal against acquittal filed by private party:
In any event a criminal revision preferred by a private party against an order of acquittal could not result in the conviction of the accused.
Interference with acquittal order in revision unwarranted:
Where the accused had allegedly sold glucose bottle by changing expiry date. There were material contradictions and discrepancies in statement of witnesses noticed by the Court. Trial Court appreciated evidence in detail and also considered each and every contention elaborately. As there was no manifest illegally or perversity in the order of acquittal, hence interference with acquittal order in revision was unwarranted.