Not every order of a criminal court is appealable, and not every error justifies the extraordinary inherent powers of the High Court. Between the two lies revision: the supervisory jurisdiction, now housed in Sections 438 to 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, through which the High Court and the Sessions Court examine the correctness, legality and propriety of findings and orders of subordinate courts. This explainer maps the jurisdiction as it operates in the Delhi High Court — what it reaches, what it refuses, and how it differs from an appeal and from Section 528 BNSS.
The statutory frame
Section 438(1) BNSS empowers the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before an inferior criminal court "for the purpose of satisfying itself... as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order... and as to the regularity of any proceedings". Section 442 supplies the High Court's powers when the record arrives: it may exercise the powers of a court of appeal, order further inquiry, and pass consequential orders — with the safeguards that the accused must be heard before any order to his prejudice and that an acquittal cannot be converted into a conviction in this jurisdiction. The scheme replicates the settled architecture of Sections 397 to 401 CrPC, so the accumulated jurisprudence carries forward.
What revision is for
Revision polices jurisdiction and legality, not mere error. The recurring, legitimate targets in Delhi practice:
Orders on charge
Framing of charge and discharge orders — the classic revisable orders, tested for whether the material discloses grave suspicion, without a mini-trial.
Cognizance and process
Orders taking cognizance and summoning accused persons, where the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence do not support them.
Maintenance orders
Orders under Section 144 BNSS — quantum, interim awards and enforcement — travel to the High Court or Sessions Court in revision.
Perverse findings
Findings vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence, reliance on inadmissible material, or manifest illegality in procedure.
The interlocutory bar — and the intermediate category
Section 438(2) forbids revision of "any interlocutory order". The bar exists to keep trials moving; it cannot be outflanked by relabelling. But decades of case law recognise an intermediate category — orders neither final nor purely interlocutory, because they decide a valuable right or, if reversed, would terminate the proceeding. Orders on charge are the standard example: they survive the bar. Day-to-day trial management — adjournments, exhibit marking, recall applications in the ordinary course — does not. The classification argument is often the first and decisive battle in a revision petition, and it must be addressed squarely in the grounds rather than assumed.
Choosing the forum — once
Practice points
Limitation for revisions is ninety days under the Limitation Act, and certified copies of the impugned order and the relevant record should accompany the petition. Interim protection — stay of proceedings or of the operation of the order — must be specifically sought; a pending revision does not by itself halt the trial. Grounds should be drafted as legality grounds, not appeal grounds in disguise: a revisional court that is invited to re-appreciate evidence will decline, while the same facts framed as non-consideration of material evidence or misapplication of the legal standard engage the jurisdiction. Finally, remember the court's own powers: revision can be exercised suo motu, and respondents' exposure includes enhancement — a consideration when advising a convicted client whether to invite revisional scrutiny of a sentence.
Against Sessions Court judgments in appeal — for instance, an appellate conviction affirmed from the Magistrate's court — the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is the standard third-tier remedy, since no second appeal lies. The scope remains supervisory: the High Court corrects manifest illegality, it does not conduct a second appellate rehearing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which orders cannot be challenged in revision?
Interlocutory orders. Section 438(2) BNSS — carrying forward Section 397(2) CrPC — bars revision against purely interlocutory orders such as adjournments, summoning of witnesses during trial, or bail orders in the ordinary course. Orders that decide a right or terminate proceedings — charge, discharge, cognizance, maintenance — are revisable.
Can a person file a revision before the Sessions Court and then the High Court?
No. Section 438(3) BNSS bars a second revision at the instance of the same person: one who has moved the Sessions Judge cannot thereafter move the High Court in revision. The choice of forum is therefore strategic and effectively final, though the High Court's inherent and constitutional jurisdictions remain for the rare case that warrants them.
Can the High Court enhance a sentence or convert an acquittal in revision?
The revisional court can act suo motu and may exercise appellate powers, but with statutory brakes: no order to the prejudice of the accused without an opportunity of hearing, and no conversion of an acquittal into a conviction in revision. Where enhancement of sentence is sought, the accused may show cause against conviction itself.
How does revision differ from a Section 528 BNSS petition?
Revision is a statutory jurisdiction over records of subordinate courts, subject to the interlocutory bar and the one-revision rule. Section 528 preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice — invoked where no other remedy exists. Where revision lies, the revision should be filed; inherent powers do not exist to circumvent statutory limits.