TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a revision before the High Court is barred when a revision has already been filed before the Sessions Judge, where the party before the High Court was not the person who moved the Sessions Judge; (ii) Whether the decision of the Sessions Judge under the Code is final only against the person who moved that forum, and whether an aggrieved unsuccessful party before the Sessions Judge may still invoke the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether a revision before the High Court is barred when a revision has already been filed before the Sessions Judge, where the party before the High Court was not the person who moved the Sessions Judge.
Analysis: The statutory bar in Section 397(3) is confined to a further application by the same person who has already applied either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge. The language does not create a blanket prohibition against every subsequent revision arising from the same matter. Reading Section 399(3) together with Section 397(3), the restriction operates against repetition by the same applicant, not against an aggrieved opposite party who was not the moving party before the Sessions Judge.
Conclusion: A revision to the High Court is not barred merely because a revision had earlier been filed before the Sessions Judge by the other side.
Issue (ii): Whether the decision of the Sessions Judge under the Code is final only against the person who moved that forum, and whether an aggrieved unsuccessful party before the Sessions Judge may still invoke the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.
Analysis: Section 399(3) gives finality to the decision of the Sessions Judge only in relation to the person by or on behalf of whom the revision was made. The provision does not extinguish the remedy of the opposite party who is aggrieved by the order passed in revision. Section 402 is intended to avoid conflicting exercises of concurrent revisional power and does not convert the revisional scheme into a single-forum bar. The scheme therefore permits the defeated party before the Sessions Judge to approach the High Court in revision, while the same person who invoked the Sessions Judge cannot re-agitate the matter in the High Court.
Conclusion: The defeated or aggrieved party before the Sessions Judge may maintain a revision before the High Court, and the Sessions Judge's order is final only against the person who moved that court.
Final Conclusion: The criminal revisions were held maintainable and competent, and they were directed to be dealt with on merits by the learned single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory bar against a second revision under the Code is personal to the party who has already invoked the revisional forum, and it does not prevent an opposite party aggrieved by the Sessions Judge's revisional order from approaching the High Court.
TaxTMI 
