Criminal revision is the supervisory remedy against orders that carry no appeal — framing of charge, discharge, summoning, maintenance and interim orders of magistrates. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 gives concurrent revisional jurisdiction to the Sessions Judge and the High Court, but with a decisive rider carried over from Section 397(3) of the CrPC: once a person has invoked one of them, no further revision application by the same person lies to the other. The choice of forum is therefore a strategic decision with no undo button — and the frequent attempt to undo it through Section 528 BNSS succeeds only in a narrow band of cases.
The revisional scheme in outline
Sections 438 to 442 of the BNSS carry forward the CrPC's supervisory architecture. The High Court or Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before an inferior criminal court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding, sentence or order, and as to the regularity of the proceedings. Two in-built limits define its character: no revision lies against an interlocutory order, and the power is discretionary supervision, not a second appeal on facts. Section 442 then clothes the High Court with the power to dispose of the revision, with safeguards — no enhancement of sentence without opportunity, no conversion of acquittal into conviction.
The bar, precisely stated
Concurrent jurisdiction
Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court can revise a magistrate's order. The applicant picks one.
Section 438(3): one application per person
Once "any person" has applied to either forum, "no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." The election, once made, exhausts the remedy.
The provision targets the applicant, not the order. The same order can face a Sessions revision by the accused and a High Court revision by the complainant, because they are not "the same person". What the statute forbids is serial revisions by one litigant working up the ladder.
Why Parliament barred the second round
- Finality in interlocutory supervision: revisions typically attack mid-trial orders; two tiers of revision on each would stall trials indefinitely.
- Forum discipline: concurrent jurisdiction invites forum shopping; the one-application rule makes the choice meaningful and final.
- Docket protection: the High Court's revisional docket is reserved for cases that come to it first or raise matters its extraordinary powers genuinely require.
The Section 528 escape — and its honest limits
Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court's inherent powers to give effect to orders under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, and to secure the ends of justice. A litigant who lost a Sessions revision often reframes the grievance as a Section 528 petition. The settled approach treats such petitions with caution: the inherent power cannot be deployed as a disguised second revision to re-appreciate the same material, but it remains available where the order under challenge discloses a jurisdictional defect, a manifest error producing a miscarriage of justice, or an abuse of process — the categories for which the power exists. In parallel, the High Court\'s constitutional supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 polices subordinate courts on the same narrow terms. The practical meaning: the second bite exists only for the exceptional case, and petitions that merely re-argue the first revision are dismissed at the threshold.
Choosing the first forum: a working matrix
| Situation | Sensible first forum | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Fact-heavy challenge (maintenance quantum, summoning on disputed material) | Sessions Judge | Quick, local, full record examined; preserves the High Court for the rare later need |
| Pure question of law, or conflicting trial-court practice | High Court | Authoritative ruling; avoids a predictable second journey |
| Order intertwined with a quashing case under Section 528 | High Court | Composite consideration in one forum avoids splitting the challenge |
| Urgency with custody consequences | Forum that can list fastest in the circumstances | Interim protection matters more than doctrinal preference |
Common traps in practice
This article explains the statutory scheme in general terms, using the BNSS provisions with their CrPC lineage. It is information, not advice on any pending matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
If my revision fails before the Sessions Judge, can I file another before the High Court?
No. Section 438(3) of the BNSS — like Section 397(3) CrPC before it — provides that where a revision application has been made by any person to the Sessions Judge or the High Court, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. The unsuccessful applicant cannot have a second round; the remedy, in a rare and appropriate case, is a petition invoking the High Court's inherent power or supervisory jurisdiction, within its recognised limits.
Does the bar apply to the opposite party too?
The bar operates against "the same person". A party who did not file the first revision — for instance, the complainant where the accused unsuccessfully revised, or vice versa — is not barred from invoking the other forum against the order affecting them. Each person gets one revisional opportunity; the statute does not aggregate the parties.
Can the High Court use Section 528 BNSS to hear what is effectively a second revision?
Only exceptionally. The inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is preserved "to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice", and courts have held it cannot be used as a routine bypass of the statutory bar. Where the impugned proceedings show a glaring jurisdictional error, manifest illegality or abuse of process resulting in miscarriage of justice, the High Court may interfere despite a failed Sessions revision — but it examines such petitions through that narrow lens, not as a rehearing.
Which forum should be chosen for the first revision?
It depends on the case. The Sessions revision is quicker to reach, local and inexpensive, and leaves the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court available for later, limited use. Going directly to the High Court puts the matter before the superior forum at once — often preferred where the question is purely legal or of some importance — but spends the only revision on it. The interlocutory-order exclusion in Section 438(2)-type limits and the availability of quashing remedies also feed the choice, which should be made deliberately at the outset.