Revisional jurisdiction requires reasoned scrutiny of evidence before disturbing concurrent conviction findings; a cryptic order is unsustainable.

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature, and a revisional court disturbing concurrent findings of conviction and sentence must engage with the evidence and reasons recorded by the courts below. A cryptic order that sets aside such findings without discussion of the material on record amounts to an abdication of judicial function. The SC held the impugned revisional order unsustainable, set it aside, and directed the revision to be heard afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's cryptic revisional order setting aside concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, without reference to the evidence or reasons, could be sustained.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and, when concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court are being disturbed, the revisional court is expected to deal with the evidence and the reasons recorded below. An order that reverses such findings without discussion of the material on record amounts to an abdication of judicial function.

Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was unsustainable and was set aside; the revision was directed to be heard afresh in accordance with law.

---