Supreme Court clarifies limits of revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases: Joseph Stephen vs. Santhanasamy (2022) INSC 48

Date of the Judgment: January 25, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 48
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a High Court, while exercising its revisional powers, overturn an acquittal and convict the accused directly? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the extent of the High Court’s authority under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This case revolves around a criminal matter where the High Court reversed an acquittal order, leading to a challenge in the Supreme Court. The judgment emphasizes the distinct roles of revisional and appellate jurisdictions in the Indian legal system.

Case Background

The case originated from a criminal trial where the accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, convicted the accused for all offenses except Sections 307 and 506(ii) of the IPC on September 28, 2012.

The accused then appealed to the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, who, on January 18, 2013, acquitted the accused. The victims also filed appeals against the acquittal under Sections 307 and 506(ii) of IPC, which were dismissed.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the victims filed criminal revision applications before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the first appellate court’s judgment, convicted the accused, and restored the trial court’s conviction, with some modifications to the sentences.

The original accused nos. 6 to 8, feeling aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate initially convicted the accused under several sections of the IPC, excluding Sections 307 and 506(ii). The first appellate court reversed this decision, acquitting the accused. Subsequently, the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturned the acquittal and convicted the accused, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the High Court’s powers of revision. Specifically, sub-section (3) of Section 401 states:
“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”

Additionally, Section 372 of the CrPC, as amended in 2009, grants a victim the right to appeal against an order of acquittal. The proviso to Section 372 states:
“Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.”

The interplay between these provisions is central to the case, determining whether a revision application can be entertained when an appeal is available, and whether a High Court can convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising revisional powers.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Accused:

• Revisional Jurisdiction: The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC by converting an acquittal into a conviction. The accused argued that the High Court’s power is limited to setting aside the acquittal and remitting the matter for retrial, not direct conviction.
• Statutory Right of Appeal: With the amendment to Section 372 CrPC, victims have a statutory right to appeal against acquittal. Therefore, a revision application should not be entertained when an appeal is the appropriate remedy. The accused relied on Section 401(4) CrPC which states that “Where under this Code 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.”
• Treatment of Revision as Appeal: Even if the High Court could treat the revision as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC, it must pass a formal judicial order to do so. No such order was passed in this case.
• Merits of the Case: The first appellate court had given sound reasons for acquittal, which should not have been disturbed by the High Court in revision.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• Revisional Powers: The State conceded that the High Court could not have directly converted the acquittal into a conviction under Section 401 CrPC.
• Treatment of Revision as Appeal: The State argued that the High Court could have treated the revision as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC.
• Victim’s Right to Appeal: The victims had a right to appeal against the acquittal under Section 372 CrPC. The State argued that their right to appeal should not be taken away due to a procedural error of filing a revision instead of an appeal.
• Remand: The State requested that the matter be remanded to the High Court to either treat the revision as an appeal or to direct a retrial.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the accused by converting the finding of acquittal into one of conviction?
2. In a case where the victim has a right of appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, and the victim has not availed such remedy, whether the revision application is required to be entertained at the instance of the victim instead of preferring an appeal?
3. While exercising the powers under sub-section (5) of Section 401 CrPC, treating the revision application as a petition of appeal, is the High Court required to pass a judicial order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788*: The Court followed this precedent, reiterating that the High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in revision.
• Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 665*: The Court relied on this case to affirm that the High Court can set aside an acquittal and remit the case for retrial.
• Sheetal Prasad v. Sri Kant, (2010) 2 SCC 190*: The Court cited this case to reinforce that Section 401(3) CrPC prohibits the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction.
• Ganesha v. Sharanappa, (2014) 1 SCC 87*: The Court used this case to clarify that while the High Court can set aside an acquittal in revision, it cannot convert it into a conviction.
• Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752*: The Court referred to this judgment to emphasize the absolute right of a victim to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 CrPC.
• Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, [(2002) 6 SCC 650*: The Court cited this case to reiterate that the High Court should not interfere with an acquittal in revision unless there is a manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the established legal framework governing revisional and appellate jurisdictions. The Court emphasized the limitations on the High Court’s revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC, particularly the explicit prohibition on converting an acquittal into a conviction. The Court also recognized the statutory right of victims to appeal against acquittals under Section 372 CrPC, ensuring that victims are not deprived of their right to appeal due to procedural errors.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the principle that appellate courts have a wider scope of jurisdiction compared to revisional courts. By directing the High Court to treat the revision applications as appeals, the Supreme Court ensured that the matter would be considered with the full breadth of appellate powers.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations of Section 401 CrPC, particularly the possibility of the High Court treating the revision as an appeal under sub-section (5). However, it rejected the High Court’s direct conversion of acquittal into conviction, emphasizing the need for a formal judicial order and the broader scope of appellate jurisdiction. The Court’s final decision was to remand the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 CrPC, ensuring that the victims’ rights are protected while adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in the law.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: the High Court erred in converting the acquittal into a conviction. The Court emphasized that the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The only course open to the High Court was to set aside the acquittal and remit the matter for retrial or rehearing. The Court also highlighted that the victims had a statutory right of appeal against the order of acquittal and should have been directed to file an appeal instead of a revision application.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”
• “Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.”
• “Where under this Code 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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was composed of two judges, both of whom concurred with the final decision.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the legal interpretation of Section 401 and Section 372 of the CrPC. The Court applied the established legal principles to the facts of the case, emphasizing the distinct roles of revisional and appellate jurisdictions. The Court also considered the historical context of the amendments to Section 372, recognizing the intent of the legislature to grant victims a substantive right of appeal.

The implications of this judgment are significant for future cases. It clarifies the limits of the High Court’s revisional powers, ensuring that acquittals are not lightly overturned in revision. It also reinforces the right of victims to appeal against acquittals, providing them with a more effective legal remedy. This decision will likely lead to a more consistent application of the law and will have a positive impact on the administration of justice in criminal cases.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The Court primarily reaffirmed existing principles and clarified their application in the context of the case. The Court’s decision was based on the established legal framework, ensuring continuity and predictability in the legal system.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC.
• Victims have a statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC.
• A revision application should not be entertained if an appeal is available.
• The High Court must pass a judicial order to treat a revision as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC.
• The appellate court has a wider scope of jurisdiction than the revisional court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 CrPC and to decide the same in accordance with the law on their own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The judgment also clarifies that in cases where a victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 CrPC, a revision application should not be entertained. This decision reinforces the existing legal framework and clarifies the procedural aspects of criminal appeals and revisions. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment provides a clear interpretation of the existing provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Joseph Stephen vs. Santhanasamy clarifies the limits of the High Court’s revisional powers under Section 401 of the CrPC, particularly regarding the conversion of acquittal to conviction. The Court emphasized that the High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in revision and must instead remit the matter for retrial or rehearing. The judgment also reinforces the right of victims to appeal against acquittals under Section 372 CrPC. The matter was remanded to the High Court to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 CrPC.