Supreme Court clarifies the limits of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC in criminal appeals: Joseph Stephen vs. Santhanasamy (25 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 96
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., and Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturn an acquittal and convict the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the boundaries of revisional powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This case arose from a criminal matter where the High Court reversed an acquittal, leading to a significant legal discussion on the scope of revisional jurisdiction versus appellate jurisdiction. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna concurring.

Case Background

The case involves a criminal matter where the accused were initially 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 under all sections except Sections 307 and 506(ii) of the IPC. The accused appealed this conviction, while the victims appealed the acquittal under Sections 307 and 506(ii) of the IPC.

The first appellate court allowed the accused’s appeal and acquitted them, dismissing the victims’ appeals. Aggrieved, 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, modifying 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, Tiruchirapalli, initially convicted the accused under several sections of the IPC but acquitted them under Sections 307 and 506(ii). The first appellate court reversed this decision, acquitting all the accused. Subsequently, the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturned the appellate court’s acquittal, convicted the accused, and restored the trial court’s conviction with modified sentences. This reversal by the High Court led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around 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 CrPC states:

“(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”

This provision restricts the High Court from directly converting an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The judgment also discusses Section 372 CrPC, which, after a 2009 amendment, grants victims a statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal.

Section 372 CrPC states:

“No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. – No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:
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 forms the core of the legal analysis in this case.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Accused):

• The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC.
• Section 401(3) CrPC specifically prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction.
• The High Court should have remitted the matter back to the trial court or the first appellate court after setting aside the acquittal.
• After the amendment to Section 372 CrPC, victims have a statutory right to appeal against acquittal, thus barring revision applications.
• Even if the High Court could treat the revision as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC, it failed to pass a judicial order to do so.
• The first appellate court’s acquittal was based on cogent reasons and should not have been interfered with in revision.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent-State:

• The High Court could not have reversed the acquittal in its revisional jurisdiction.
• The High Court could have treated the revision as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC.
• The victims had a right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC, and their right should not be taken away due to a procedural error of filing a revision.
• The matter should be remanded to the High Court to treat the revision as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC.

Rejoinder by the Appellants:

• Opposed the prayer to treat the revision as an appeal, arguing that the High Court must pass a judicial order for such conversion.
• The scope of revisional and appellate jurisdictions is distinct, with appellate courts having wider powers.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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?
2. Whether a revision application should be entertained at the instance of a party/victim who has a right to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, but has not availed of that remedy?
3. Whether the High Court is required to pass a judicial order while exercising powers under sub-section (5) of Section 401 CrPC to treat a revision application as a petition of appeal?

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?

The Court relied on several authorities to clarify the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the right of appeal. Key authorities and their application include:

• K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788:* This case was cited to emphasize that a revisional court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction. The Court reiterated that the High Court, in revision, can only set aside an acquittal and order a retrial.
• Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 665:* This authority supported the view that the High Court can set aside an order of acquittal and remit the case for retrial if material evidence is overlooked.
• Sheetal Prasad v. Sri Kant, (2010) 2 SCC 190:* This case was used 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 referred to this case to highlight that while a High Court can set aside an acquittal in revision, it cannot convert it to a conviction; the only option is a retrial.
• Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752:* This judgment was crucial in establishing that a victim has an absolute right to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, without needing special leave.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear statutory limitations on the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 401(3) CrPC. The Court emphasized that the High Court exceeded its powers by converting an acquittal into a conviction. Additionally, the Court was mindful of the victim’s statutory right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC and sought to ensure that this right was not undermined by procedural errors. The Court also considered the need for a judicial order when converting a revision application into an appeal, as specified under Section 401(5) CrPC.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was as follows:

The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CrPC, cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. This is explicitly barred by Section 401(3) CrPC.

If the High Court finds that the order of acquittal is not proper, it must set aside the acquittal and remit the matter to the trial court or the first appellate court for a retrial or rehearing, as appropriate.

The victim has a statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC. If an appeal is available, a revision application should not be entertained.

If a revision application is filed under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies, the High Court can treat it as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC, but it must pass a judicial order to do so.

The High Court did not follow the correct procedure and therefore, the matter was remanded back to the High Court to treat the revision as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC.

The Court also considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they would contradict the clear language of Section 401(3) CrPC and the victim’s right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC.

The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the law, ensuring that the High Court’s powers are exercised within the bounds of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”
• “no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal.”
• “firstly the High Court has to pass a judicial order to treat the application for revision as petition of appeal.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC.
• If the High Court finds an acquittal to be flawed, it must set it aside and remit the matter for retrial or rehearing.
• Victims have a statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, and revision applications should not be entertained if an appeal is available.
• A High Court must pass a judicial order to treat a revision application as an appeal under Section 401(5) CrPC.
• The appellate jurisdiction is wider than the revisional jurisdiction, and victims should be allowed to exercise the right to appeal.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court. The High Court is directed to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 CrPC and decide the same on their merits in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC. This judgment reinforces the established legal position and clarifies the procedure to be followed when dealing with appeals against acquittals. The court reiterated the importance of the victim’s right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC, ensuring that this right is not undermined by procedural issues.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Joseph Stephen vs. Santhanasamy clarifies the limitations of the High Court’s revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC. By emphasizing the statutory bar on converting acquittals to convictions and the victim’s right to appeal, the Court ensures that legal processes are followed correctly and that justice is served. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards and respecting the distinct jurisdictions of appellate and revisional courts.