PART I
Reference to High Court
1. REFERENCE ON QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
Under Section 436(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a subordinate court is required to make a reference to the High Court when it is satisfied that a case before it involves a real and substantial question regarding the constitutional validity of a law, the determination of which is necessary for disposing of the case, and where the law is believed to be invalid but has not yet been declared so by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
In making such a reference, the lower court must state the case along with its reasons and judicial opinion, while Article 228 of the Constitution concurrently empowers the High Court to withdraw such a pending case to itself to decide the question of constitutional validity.
2. REFERENCE ON OTHER QUESTION OF LAW
Under Section 436(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Sessions Court possesses the discretionary power to refer any question of law arising during the hearing of a pending case to the High Court for its authoritative decision.
However, this power is strictly confined to genuine questions of law rather than questions of fact, and the legal issue must directly emerge from the active proceedings of the case at hand, as the High Court will not entertain or decide purely hypothetical or academic legal questions regardless of their importance.
3. POST-REFERENCE PROCEDURE
Following a reference made to the High Court regarding a question of law or constitutional validity, the High Court considers the issue and passes an appropriate order as it deems fit, subsequently sending an official copy of this order to the referring court.
Upon receiving the decision, the subordinate court is legally obligated to proceed with and dispose of the pending case strictly in conformity with the rulings and directions issued by the High Court.
PART II
Revision
The legal framework governing the review of criminal court decisions serves as a critical safeguard for fundamental rights like life and liberty, grounded in the understanding that judicial officers—including judges and Magistrates—are human and subject to error.
Where statutory appeals are unavailable or prove inadequate in delivering justice, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) establishes “revision” as a secondary mechanism of judicial review.
Under this mechanism, extensive discretionary powers are granted to both the Sessions Court and the High Court to examine and ensure the correctness, legality, and propriety of subordinate court decisions, while simultaneously incorporating procedural limits to prevent the revisional process from becoming unnecessarily burdensome, expensive, or dilatory.
1. POWER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF THE LOWER COURT
Under Section 438(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court or a Sessions Court is empowered to call for and inspect the records of any judicial proceeding—even those not pertaining to a specific offense—from a judicially subordinate criminal court to verify the correctness, legality, or propriety of its findings or orders.
For the purpose of this section, all Executive and Judicial Magistrates fall subordinate to the Sessions Judge, while the Sessions Judge is subordinate to the High Court; if corrective intervention is warranted after examining the records, the higher court exercises broad remedial powers under Sections 439–442 BNSS.
Additionally, while examining such records under Section 438(1) BNSS, the High Court or Sessions Court holds the authority to stay or suspend the execution of the lower court’s sentence or order and release the accused from confinement on a personal bond or bail bond.
2. NO REVISION IN RESPECT OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
Under Section 438(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised against interlocutory orders passed during an inquiry, trial, or appeal, a statutory restriction designed to ensure the expeditious disposal of criminal cases.
Although the BNSS does not define an “interlocutory order,” the term refers to temporary procedural directions—such as issuing witness summonses or granting trial adjournments—that do not determine the substantive rights or liabilities of the parties.
Crucially, non-final orders are not automatically barred from revision; intermediate or quasi-final orders (such as an order summoning an accused under Sections 223–227 BNSS or an order rejecting a plea that would otherwise conclude the proceeding) affect vital rights and remain open to revisional challenge.
Furthermore, interlocutory orders passed entirely without jurisdiction are nullities to which the statutory bar does not apply.
Finally, while an aggrieved party cannot routinely circumvent Section 438(2) BNSS by resorting to the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), the High Court retains full authority to intervene in exceptional cases to prevent an abuse of process or to quash illegal, vexatious, or jurisdictional-lacking proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
3. ONLY ONE REVISION PETITION EITHER TO SESSIONS COURT OR THE HIGH COURT
Under Section 438(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), an aggrieved individual is entitled to choose either the Sessions Court or the High Court for filing a revision petition, but once an application has been made by that person to either forum, no further revision application by the same individual can be entertained by either court.
Designed to curb repetitive litigation and bring early finality to judicial orders, this provision renders the decision of the Sessions Judge conclusive if approached first, thereby barring the same party from seeking a second revision before the High Court.
While an order rejecting a regular appeal in the Sessions Court can still be challenged via revision in the High Court, a party cannot be compelled by local court rules to exhaust revisional remedies before the Sessions Judge before accessing the High Court.
Furthermore, the statutory bar under Section 438(3) BNSS (corresponding to Section 397(3) of the former CrPC) strictly attaches to second revision applications filed by the same person, leaving other distinct parties in the case unaffected.
4. POWER OF COURT OF REVISION TO ORDER INQUIRY
Under Section 439 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a court of revision, upon examining the case record or otherwise, holds the authority to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate—or another subordinate Magistrate through the CJM—to carry out a further inquiry into complaints dismissed under Section 226 or Section 227(4) BNSS, as well as into cases where an accused person has been discharged.
However, in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, Section 439 BNSS expressly mandates that the revisional court cannot issue a direction for further inquiry regarding a discharged individual without first giving that person a reasonable opportunity to show cause why such a direction should not be ordered.
5. SESSIONS JUDGE’S POWERS OF REVISION
Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) defines the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge, providing that when a Sessions Judge calls for proceedings on their own motion, they can exercise all the revisional powers available to the High Court under Section 442(1) BNSS.
The procedural rules governing High Court revisions under Section 442(2)–(5) BNSS apply equally to proceedings before the Sessions Judge, which includes entertaining revision applications with special leave by complainants challenging an acquittal, even in state-prosecuted cases originating from police reports.
Furthermore, Section 440(3) BNSS establishes that while an aggrieved party may choose to approach either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Section 438 BNSS, selecting the Sessions Judge renders that decision final for that party; if the Sessions Judge rejects the revision application, that specific individual cannot subsequently seek a second revision before the High Court or any other court.
6. HIGH COURT’S POWERS OF REVISION
(1) Specific powers.
Under Section 442(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court holds extensive discretionary powers of revision, allowing it to exercise appellate authorities under Sections 427, 430, 431, and 432 BNSS—such as granting bail, gathering additional evidence, and determining appeals—alongside the authority to tender pardons under Section 344 BNSS and resolve bench split-decisions under Section 433 BNSS.
Although these revisional powers are crafted broadly to ensure subordinate courts operate strictly within their jurisdiction without abusing process, litigants do not hold a vested right to revision, and any judicial intervention must be supported by clear legal reasoning rather than generalized statements of error.
Furthermore, when invoked by a private complainant, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is restricted strictly to exceptional circumstances, such as cases where trial courts improperly exclude valid evidence, act without jurisdiction, overlook material facts, rely on irrelevant evidence, or grant acquatials based on legally invalid compounding of offenses.
(2) Restrictions on invoking the revisional powers.
The High Court possesses broad revisional powers that can be exercised either on its own motion (suo motu), on a petition by an aggrieved party, or upon an application from any other person.
However, when an aggrieved party invokes this jurisdiction, two statutory limitations apply: under Section 440(3) BNSS, a person who has already filed a revision before the Sessions Judge cannot file a second revision in the High Court, and under Section 442(4) BNSS, a party who failed to exercise their existing right of appeal is barred from seeking a revision instead.
In situations where one party files an appeal before the Sessions Court while another seeks a revision in the High Court alongside a transfer request, the High Court typically maintains the revision petition as pending until the Sessions Court resolves the appeal.
Crucially, these statutory restrictions apply strictly to private petitions and do not limit the High Court when exercising its suo motu jurisdiction, enabling it to intervene on its own initiative whenever necessary to uphold justice and prevent flagrant abuses of the law.
(3) How the powers are exercised.
The exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 442(1) BNSS (formerly Section 401(1) CrPC) is discretionary and strictly reserved for exceptional circumstances involving glaring procedural defects, clear errors of law, or flagrant miscarriages of justice.
While the High Court generally refrains from disturbing concurrent factual findings or re-appreciating evidence, it will intervene if a finding is vitiated by being based on no evidence, ignoring key proof, or misinterpreting material facts—exercising heightened scrutiny when revision is the sole statutory remedy available.
In exercising this power, the court is bound by two primary statutory limitations: it cannot review purely interlocutory orders under Section 438(2) BNSS, nor can it convert an acquittal into a conviction under Section 442(3) BNSS.
Furthermore, the High Court must ensure it does not indirectly achieve a conviction by ordering a retrial or remanding a case on merits, particularly at the instance of a private party where the State declined to appeal.
When an acquittal is validly set aside due to a severe legal violation or procedural flaw, the High Court’s proper recourse is to direct a rehearing or retrial by the lower court rather than imposing a conviction itself.
(4) Opportunity to a party of being heard.
Under Section 442(2) and the Proviso to Section 439 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a revisional court is strictly bound by the fundamental principles of natural justice—specifically audi alteram partem—ensuring that no order directing further inquiry against a discharged person or otherwise prejudicing an accused or third party can be issued without granting them a fair opportunity to be heard in their defense either in person or through an advocate.
Beyond these mandatory protections, Section 444 BNSS establishes that parties do not possess an absolute right to oral arguments in revisional proceedings, leaving it to the court’s discretion whether to hear a party or their legal representative based on the specifics of the case.
(5) Treating an application for revision as a petition of appeal.
Under Section 442(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if a person files an application for revision before the High Court in a case where an appeal actually lies, and the High Court is satisfied that the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal was available, the High Court may treat the revision application as a petition of appeal and proceed with it accordingly.
Furthermore, a revision application may lose its legal relevance or become invalid due to outcomes in connected appellate proceedings, as illustrated in K. Ramachandran v. V.N. Rajan, where a revision filed against an acquittal order in the Sessions Court became invalid after the High Court refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal against that acquittal.
(6) No abatement of revision by death of the petitioner.
While exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court discharges a broader statutory function of supervising the overall administration of criminal justice, meaning that the rules governing the abatement of appeals under Section 435 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) do not automatically apply to revision applications.
Because the court’s focus is on ensuring legality and correcting procedural or substantive errors rather than merely resolving an individual grievance, a revision application does not abate simply due to the petitioner’s death.
Consequently, in proper and deserving cases, the High Court retains the power to examine, modify, or set aside an order made against an accused person even after their demise to ensure that justice is upheld.
7. POWER OF HIGH COURT TO WITHDRAW OR TRANSFER CASES
Under Section 443(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when co-convicts from the same trial file separate revision applications before different forums—some in the High Court and others before the Sessions Judge—the High Court holds the statutory authority to decide which forum should handle all the applications collectively, basing its decision on party convenience and the significance of the legal questions involved.
Once the High Court transfers such applications to the Sessions Judge for final disposition, Section 443(4) BNSS explicitly prohibits any person whose application has been disposed of by the Sessions Judge from filing a second or further application for revision before the High Court or any other forum.
8. ORDER OF REVISIONAL COURT TO BE CERTIFIED TO LOWER COURT
Under Section 445 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), whenever a court exercising revisional jurisdiction decides or modifies a case, it is legally required to formally certify its decision to the subordinate trial court concerned.
Upon receiving this certified decision, the lower court is bound to execute the ruling and issue all necessary legal orders that strictly conform to the directives and outcomes certified by the revisional court.