TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court's Jurisdiction on Second Revision Upheld</h1> <h3>KRISHNAN & ANR. Versus KRISHNAVENI & ANR.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a second revision under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second revision u/s 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Continuous supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Summary:Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second revision u/s 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The appellants contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second revision due to the prohibition u/s 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court had allowed a revision petition filed by the first respondent, setting aside the order of the Magistrate and directing a trial on merits. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could entertain a revision u/s 397(1) when the Sessions Judge had already exercised revisional power.Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The Supreme Court discussed the inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482, which are preserved to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court held that the inherent power of the High Court is not conferred by the Code but is preserved by it. The object of Section 397(3) is to prevent unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings. However, the prohibition under Section 397(3) does not apply when the State seeks revision u/s 401.Continuous supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The Supreme Court emphasized the continuous supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 483, which is of paramount importance to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order recorded or passed by inferior criminal courts. The Court held that the High Court has suo motu power u/s 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction u/s 483 to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities.The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court is justified in interfering with orders leading to miscarriage of justice and setting aside the orders of the lower courts. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remitted to the Magistrate for a decision on merits after consideration of the evidence. The Supreme Court clarified that it did not go into the merits of the case but only considered the issue of power and jurisdiction of the High Court in the context of revisional power u/s 397(1) read with Section 397(3) and inherent powers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
