Revision is the High Court’s and the Sessions Judge’s power to examine a subordinate criminal court’s record and correct a finding, sentence, or order that is illegal, improper, or irregular. It is supervisory. It is not a full rehearing of the evidence in the way a first appeal often is.
The power existed under Sections 397–401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It now sits in Sections 438–442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The tests are the same. The section numbers changed on 1 July 2024.
Revision is the remedy used when no appeal lies, or when the defect is a jurisdictional or legal error that should not wait for a full trial or a full appeal. It is also the remedy that is barred against a purely interlocutory order — which is why so many revisions fail at the threshold.
At The Chambers of Tarun Gaur, Advocates at Delhi High Court, criminal revisions before the Sessions Court and the Delhi High Court are part of the same practice as appeals, discharge, and quashing. Advocate Tarun Gaur appears independently in the Delhi High Court after training under Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate, former President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
What Revision Examines
Section 438(1) BNSS (old Section 397(1) CrPC) lets the High Court or any Sessions Judge call for the record of an inferior criminal court in its local jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to:
- the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order; and
- the regularity of the proceedings.
While the record is called, the court may suspend execution of the sentence or order and, if the accused is in custody, release him on bond pending examination of the record.
Every Magistrate — judicial or executive, original or appellate — is “inferior” to the Sessions Judge for this chapter.
Revision can be moved by a party. It can also be exercised suo motu when the record comes to the court’s knowledge.
Revision Is Not Appeal, and It Is Not Quashing
| Appeal | Revision | Inherent power / writ | |
| Source | S. 413–435 BNSS / Ss. 372–394 CrPC | Ss. 438–442 BNSS / Ss. 397–401 CrPC | S. 528 BNSS / S. 482 CrPC; Art. 226 |
| Nature | Statutory rehearing where the code grants an appeal | Supervisory check on legality, propriety, regularity | Abuse of process; ends of justice; fundamental rights |
| Evidence | Often re-appreciated within limits | Not a second trial; palpable error, perversity, want of jurisdiction | Record plus, in a narrow class, sterling material |
| Interlocutory orders | Generally no appeal | Barred if purely interlocutory — S. 438(2) / S. 397(2) | May still be available |
| Acquittal → conviction | Possible in a State / victim appeal, on a strict test | High Court cannot convert acquittal into conviction in revision — S. 442(3) BNSS / S. 401(3) CrPC | Not a substitute for that ban |
If an appeal lies, file the appeal. Revision is not a spare appeal with a lighter court-fee.
If the order is a purely interlocutory step in a pending trial, revision is the wrong gate. The High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC may still be open in a proper case — Delhi High Court practice often turns on that distinction.
The Interlocutory-Order Bar
Section 438(2) BNSS (old Section 397(2) CrPC) is the provision that decides maintainability:
Revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding.
The code does not define “interlocutory.” The Supreme Court does.
Pure interlocutory orders (no revision):
adjournments, summoning a witness, calling for a report, many routine bail steps in aid of the proceeding, issuance of a mere notice on an application. These do not decide rights. Allowing revision against them would stall every trial.
Final orders (revision may lie, subject to the rest of the chapter):
conviction, acquittal, discharge, dismissal of a complaint, an order that ends the proceeding.
Intermediate orders (revision may lie):
orders that are not the last word in the case, but that substantially affect rights or a vital aspect of the trial. Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, and later cases treat this third category as outside the bar. An order that, if left untouched, would cause irreparable prejudice is not “purely interlocutory” merely because the trial is still pending.
Working examples
- Order framing charge / refusing discharge — generally treated as intermediate; revision is often the first challenge.
- Order taking cognizance and summoning the accused — as against the accused, commonly treated as intermediate (it forces him into a criminal case). As against a complainant who is unhappy that someone was summoned, courts have called it interlocutory and sent the complainant to Section 528 / 482.
- Order dismissing an application that only manages the diary — interlocutory.
- Order of regular bail — often treated as interlocutory for revision; cancellation or inherent jurisdiction may be the other path.
Getting this classification wrong is the most common reason a revision is dismissed at the admission stage in the Delhi High Court.
Sessions or High Court — Concurrent Jurisdiction
Section 438 gives both the Sessions Judge and the High Court the power to call for a Magistrate’s record.
Section 438(3) BNSS (old Section 397(3) CrPC) then shuts a door: if a person has applied to one of them, no further revision by the same person will be entertained by the other.
There is no second revision. A party who loses a revision before Sessions cannot file another revision in the High Court on the same order. The High Court may still look at the matter under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC in a fit case, but that is not a second revision, and it is not automatic.
Propriety: concurrent jurisdiction does not mean every Magistrate order should land first on the High Court board. Courts have said the Sessions Court should ordinarily be approached first, except for rare and special reasons. Filing straight in the High Court is maintainable; it is often not proper.
Section 440 BNSS (old Section 399 CrPC) sets out the Sessions Judge’s revisional powers. Section 441 lets an Additional Sessions Judge exercise them in cases transferred to him. Section 442 BNSS (old Section 401 CrPC) sets out the High Court’s powers: it may use specified powers of an appellate court, including suspension of sentence on the lines of Section 430, but it cannot turn an acquittal into a conviction. No order to the prejudice of the accused is to be made without hearing him.
Section 439 BNSS (old Section 398 CrPC) allows a direction for further inquiry in specified situations.
How Narrow the Merits Review Is
Revision is for:
- want or excess of jurisdiction;
- violation of a mandatory procedure;
- a finding that is perverse — no evidence, or a conclusion no reasonable court could reach on that record;
- an illegal sentence;
- a gross miscarriage of justice.
It is not for:
- re-weighing which witness was more believable, as if the revisional court were the trial court;
- filling gaps the party failed to lead at the proper stage;
- stalling a trial with a challenge to every listing order.
Even where revision against a conviction is maintainable because no appeal was filed or no appeal lies, the court is slower to interfere than in a first appeal.
Limitation applies. Delay can be condoned for sufficient cause, but a stale challenge to a charge order, after the trial has moved on, is argued uphill.
Suspension of Sentence in a Revision
Section 438(1) itself allows the revisional court, when calling for the record, to suspend the sentence or order and release the accused on bond. Section 442 then points to appellate
powers that include the suspension machinery aligned with Section 430 BNSS / Section 389 CrPC.
That is still not automatic. A convict who has a revision (and not an appeal) must ask for suspension with reasons — sentence length, time undergone, the legal defect pointed out — just as in an appeal.
Typical Revisions in Delhi Practice
- Challenge to framing of charge or refusal of discharge (Sessions / warrant cases; and now, where used, summons-case discharge under Section 274 BNSS).
- Challenge to dismissal of a complaint or refusal to take cognizance.
- Challenge to an order that is intermediate and prejudicial, not a diary order.
- Challenge to the legality of sentence where the appellate chapter does not apply.
- Complainant’s or accused’s challenge to an order that effectively ends or gravely skews the proceeding.
A summons-case accused under the CrPC still cannot obtain Magistrate-level discharge after process. Revision or a High Court petition is often the only pre-trial court challenge. Under the BNSS, Section 274 discharge exists; if it is refused, revision may follow.
Revision Practice at The Chambers of Tarun Gaur
Advocate Tarun Gaur files and argues criminal revisions in the Sessions Courts and in the Delhi High Court, and advises when the correct filing is revision, when it is an appeal, and when it is Section 528 BNSS / Article 226.
The first page of a usable revision is maintainability: is the order interlocutory, intermediate, or final? Has Sessions already been used? Does an appeal lie instead? That sorting is High Court criminal method, learned under Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate.
Advocate Tarun Gaur holds All India Rank 1 in AILET LL.M. (NLU Delhi) and appears across Delhi trial courts, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court. Clients searching for a best criminal lawyer in Delhi, a best criminal lawyer Delhi High Court, or the Delhi High Court line associated with Mohit Mathur Senior Advocate, usually need that sorting done before the petition is numbered — not after it is dismissed as not maintainable.
For a view on a specific order, share the order, the stage of the case, and whether any earlier revision has been filed. Contact: tarun@tarungaur.in | +91-98715 30801 | tarungaur.in.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Can I revise every order the Magistrate passes?
No. Pure interlocutory orders are barred. That is the point of Section 438(2) / 397(2). - Sessions dismissed my revision. Can I file another in the High Court?
Not a second revision by the same person. Inherent jurisdiction is a different, narrower ask. - Should I go to Sessions or straight to the Delhi High Court?
Both have power. Propriety usually means Sessions first against a Magistrate’s order, unless there is a special reason. - The trial court acquitted the accused. Can I get a conviction in revision?
The High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in revision. A statutory appeal against acquittal, where it lies, is the path. - Is revision a substitute for appeal against conviction?
No. If an appeal lies, use it. Revision is not a second, easier appeal. - Who should draft the revision?
Counsel who will argue maintainability and the legal defect on the same morning. At this chamber that work is done by Advocate Tarun Gaur, trained under Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur.