CrPC Section 397 - Calling For Records To Exercise Powers Of Revision

The Indian criminal justice system provides for multiple layers of judicial overview in the administration of justice. An important mechanism to review and correct the potential errors, either in the judicial orders or the proceedings of the subordinate Courts, is provided by Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). This Section vests in the High Court and Sessions Judges the authority to summon and inspect the records of the subordinate criminal Courts within their territorial jurisdiction. Section 397 of the Code vests discretionary powers; and the powers conferred under the same achieve the twin objectives, namely, preventing miscarriage of justice and maintaining judicial propriety.

Legal Provision of CrPC Section 397

Section 397: Calling for records to exercise powers of revision-

1. The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
   [Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-Section and of Section 398]
2. The powers of revision conferred by sub-Section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
3. If an application under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Simplified explanation of CrPC Section 397

Let's break down Section 397 of the Code in simpler words:

• Sub-Section (1): Section 397(1) enables the High Court or a Sessions Judge to examine the judicial record of any case in any subordinate Court within its jurisdiction. So that the findings, orders or sentences granted by the subordinate Courts are made with proper, valid, and lawful compliance with the law of the land. The High Court or Sessions Judge can also halt the execution of any sentence or order from the lower Court pending its review if it so wants to examine the case records. They can direct to release of the convicted person on bail or bond till they have examined the records. This Sub-Section clarifies all Magistrates, whether executive or judicial, exercising their original or appellate jurisdiction - are “inferior” to the Sessions Judge for Section 397(1) & 398.
• Sub-Section (2): The power of the High Court and Sessions Judge is restricted in this subsection. They cannot use this power to review any interlocutory order passed during appeal, inquiry, trial, and other proceedings.
• Sub-Section (3): This subsection goes further and provides that, if any person has already moved either to the High Court or to Sessions Judge to exercise this revision power, he shall not be entitled to move the other authority for the same case. Thus, no one can make a prayer for a grant of relief by making multiple applications before both the High Court and the Sessions Court simultaneously.

Key Components of CrPC Section 397

• Jurisdiction to call for Records: The High Court and the Sessions Judge have the power to summon for their inspection any record of any proceeding before an inferior criminal Court subordinate to them. This shall extend to all Magistrates, both Executive and Judicial, exercising original or appellate jurisdiction.
• Purpose of Revision: The purpose of this revision is to ensure that findings, sentences, or orders passed by inferior Courts are proper, legal, and correct. Moreover, the revision also examines the regularity of proceedings conducted in the subordinate Courts.
• Suspension of Orders: When the record is called for by the Court, it can provide that the execution of the sentence or order be suspended. If the accused is detained, the Court can order his/her release on bail or his/her own bond pending the examination of the record.
• Inferior Courts: For the purposes of Section 397 of the Code, all Magistrates are inferior to the Sessions Judge.
• Interlocutory Orders: Under Section 397(2), the powers of revision cannot be exercised in respect of any interlocutory orders made in the course of proceedings. This Section is drafted with an eye that the process of revision will not operate as a delaying device to thwart judicial administration by frequent interruptions.
• Bar on Multiple Applications: Once an application under Section 397 has been made to either the High Court or the Sessions Judge, no further application can be made to the other by the same person. It thereby avoids duplication of revision proceedings and prevents conflicting judgments from different Courts.

Scope of CrPC Section 397

• Powers of Revision: The power conferred under Section 397 of the Code provides that the High Court or the Sessions Judge shall have the power to prevent any miscarriage of justice. The reviewing authority may call the records of any case from any subordinate Court to satisfy itself whether the proceedings, findings, or orders meet the requirements of law and procedural fairness. In exercising its powers of revision, the Court can examine questions of law and fact, but the scope of interference is narrower compared to that in an appeal.
• Applicable to Subordinate Court: Section 397 applies to all the Magistrates (Executive and Judicial) functioning within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge or the High Court. These Courts are said to be inferior to the revisional authority, and this is irrespective of their exercising original or appellate jurisdiction. This provision extends the ambit of revisional jurisdiction to a vast range of criminal proceedings except for interlocutory orders.
• Limitation in Respect of Interlocutory Orders: It particularly restrains the exercise of revisionary powers in respect of interlocutory orders. Section 397 of the Code permits revision of only final orders and substantive decisions.

Judicial Interpretations of CrPC Section 397

Amar Nath & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1977)

The Court in this held the following regarding Section 397 of the Code:

• Section 397(2) of the Code restricts the revisory jurisdiction of the High Court where an order is specifically prohibited. The inherent powers available under Section 482 of the Code could not be resorted to bypass the restrictions that are present in Section 397(2), because such a manoeuvre would run counter to the intent provided behind Section 397(2).
• The term “interlocutory order” has a defined meaning that has been used in various statutes. According to the precedent, an interlocutory order can be appealed only if it determines the rights and obligations of the parties regarding any given issue.
• The term “interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) of the Code, is used with limited sense rather than broadly. In other words, it relates to orders that are only provisional or transitory and do not speak of or decide the fundamental rights or liabilities of the parties.
• Any order which either affects a substantial right of the accused or resolves some specific rights of the parties concerned can not be dealt with as an interlocutory order to prevent the High Court from reviewing it under Section 397 of the Code. Doing so would be in contravention of the very goal behind the inclusion of Section 397 in the Code.
• The aim of drafting Section 397(2) in the Code was to prevent delay in the process and ensure that the accused persons received a fair trial. This was to be accomplished by preventing any unnecessary trial delays while at the same time making the process as simple as possible.
• Orders that only relate to the procedure of a case, which do not determine any right or obligation of the parties involved, are interlocutory. Such orders include summoning witnesses, postponing cases, passing orders for bail, requiring reports, or ordering anything else to facilitate the ongoing proceedings. Such an order would be held as interlocutory in character and, therefore, would not be covered by Section 397(2) of the Code for revision.
• Orders declaring the rights of the accused or a part of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory orders as that would make them outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra (1977)

In this case, the Court addressed the scope of Section 397 of the Code about the inherent powers of the High Court. The Court held the following:

• Bar on Section 397(2) of the Code on revisions for interlocutory orders applies only to the revisional powers of the High Court, not its inherent powers under Section 482. While Section 482 of the Code states that nothing in the Code limits the inherent powers of the High Court, a harmonious reading suggests this does not completely negate the limitations on revisional powers in Section 397(2).
• The High Court has an inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where they amounted to an abuse of process or to secure justice, even if the order in question is interlocutory. The Court emphasised that such cases should be rare and this inherent power should be used sparingly.
• The Court clarified that the term ‘interlocutory order’ in Section 397(2) should not be interpreted too broadly as merely the opposite of a ‘final order’. A strict interpretation, where only orders made on the final determination of an action are revisable, would make the revisional powers of the High Court practically useless.
• The Court felt that there are orders that fall between ‘interlocutory’ and ‘final’. These ‘intermediate’ orders may not be conclusive of the whole case but could conclusively determine certain issues. Such orders would not necessarily be excluded from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code.
• A rejection of the plea of an accused on a point that, if accepted, would end the proceedings is not an interlocutory order for Section 397(2) of the Code. Because this order has major effects on the proceedings and might be considered a fit case for interference by the High Court.

Practical Implications of CrPC Section 397

• Preventing miscarriage of justice: The main function of Section 397 of the Code is to it prevent miscarriage of justice. By giving higher Courts powers to revise orders of subordinate Courts, it provides checks on arbitrary, illegal, or otherwise improper judicial decisions.
• Limiting Delays in Proceedings: Section 397 excludes interlocutory orders from its area of operation. This prevents an unwarranted delay in the criminal trial procedures. Such a procedure cannot be used by the litigants to prevent the execution of justice by filing a petition repeatedly during the course of a trial.
• Bar on Multiple Applications: The law prohibits filing multiple revision applications. Thus, the litigants cannot resort to forum shopping and extend the process of the Court by filing different revision petitions in the High Court as well as in the Sessions Court. This provision advances judicial efficiency and eliminates contradictory judgments.

Conclusion

Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stands as an important check within the Indian criminal justice system, which gives a means for reviewing the orders passed by the subordinate Courts. Since the High Court and Sessions Judge are empowered to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of decisions passed by the Subordinate Court. This provision helps to prevent miscarriages of justice. However, the Section does incorporate essential limitations such as interlocutory order exclusion so as to avoid undue delay and abuse of the revisionary process.