All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.
The Sessions Judge is also inferior to the High Court within the meaning of Section 397(1) and the High Court may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before a Sessions Judge.
Discretion in the exercise of revision jurisdiction should be exercised within the four corners of this Section whenever there has been miscarriage of justice in any manner whatsoever.
If on perusal of the judgment and other available materials the Court of revision is satisfied that interference with the impugned order is not called for, it may dispense with the calling for record of the inferior Court and dismiss the application.
On examination of record if the High Court or the Sessions Court considers any corrective action necessary, it has ample powers to do so under Sections 398 to 401.
No revision in respect of interlocutory orders:
According to Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the powers of revision conferred by Section 397(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
‘Interlocutory order’ is an intermediate order made during the preliminary stages of an inquiry or trial to advance the cause of justice for the final determination of the rights between the parties.
The following orders have been held to be interlocutory orders in different cases:
(1) An order holding an inquiry is an interlocutory order.
(2) An order upholding the validity of sanction is an interlocutory order.
(3) Order of granting or rejecting or cancellation of bail is an interlocutory order.
(4) An order concerning the admissibility of oral evidence in a criminal trial is an interlocutory order.
(5) An order issuing process is an interlocutory order.
(6) An order framing a charge is an interlocutory order.
(7) Refusal by Court to recall witnesses is an interlocutory order.
(8) The order granting the pardon is an interlocutory order.
(9) The order of the criminal Court staying criminal proceeding pending decision of the civil suit is an interlocutory order.
(10) Order dispensing with personal appearance or refusing it is an interlocutory order.
The test for determining whether an order is of a final or interlocutory nature, is whether or not the order in question finally disposes of the rights of the parties or leaves them to be determined by the Court in the ordinary way.
The purpose of putting a bar on the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order is to bring about expeditious disposal of criminal cases.
If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power under Section 482. However, in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) of the Code can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.
Only one revision petition either to Session Court or the High Court:
As per Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if an application under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
The restriction on further revision as contained in Section 397(3) of the Code is confined to a second revision application filed by the same person only.
The object of restriction on further revision is to prevent a multiple exercise of revisional powers and so secure early finality to orders.
Section 397(3) of the Code bars the High Court to entertain application of revision made by any person who has already made an application to the Sessions Judge or vice versa. In a case where the sessions Court are the appellate Court, if the appeal has been rejected by it, a revision may lie to the High Court.
Complainant had no right to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence:
In the instant case it was held that complainant had no right to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence but he was well within his right to file revision.
Revision against order under Section 146 held maintainable:
It has been observed that an order passed under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not interlocutory and revision against such order was maintainable.
No curtailment of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court:
The provision of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 397 of Cr. P.C. cannot curtail the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India provided the conditions explicit or implicit therein for invoking such jurisdiction are satisfied.