Published on: February 1, 2024 at 19:04 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan V. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Revisionary Jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to keep a check and balance to the principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is held that Revision Jurisdiction can only be invoked against the impugned Final Order which is perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. It is held that a Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court to appreciate the facts and evidences.
14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra