Analysis of Section 399 CrPC

An Exposition of Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Sessions Judge's Power of Revision

Introduction

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) establishes a comprehensive framework for the administration of criminal justice in India. A pivotal aspect of this framework is the provision for judicial oversight of subordinate courts to ensure legality, propriety, and correctness in their proceedings. Revisional jurisdiction serves as a mechanism for higher courts to examine the records of inferior courts, thereby preventing miscarriages of justice. Within this schema, Section 399 of the CrPC specifically confers powers of revision upon the Sessions Judge. This article aims to provide a scholarly analysis of Section 399 CrPC, delving into its legislative underpinnings, scope, procedural nuances, and judicial interpretation, drawing upon relevant case law and statutory provisions.

Legislative Genesis and Textual Framework of Section 399 CrPC, 1973

Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is titled "Sessions Judge’s powers of revision" and reads as follows:

"(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.
(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court."

It is pertinent to note that the historical antecedent of revisional powers has evolved. For instance, an older version of Section 399 in a previous Code (e.g., Act X of 1872, referred to in cases like Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Ahmad Ali (Calcutta High Court, 1897)) dealt with sending youthful offenders to reformatory schools, a subject matter entirely different from the current Section 399 CrPC, 1973, which pertains to the Sessions Judge's revisional jurisdiction. The transition from the old CrPC (1898) to the new CrPC (1973) also had implications for pending proceedings, where Section 399 of the new Code was subject to savings provisions like Section 484(2) CrPC, as noted in Damodar Panigrahi And Others… v. Banchhanidhi Panigrahi And Another… (Orissa High Court, 1976).

Furthermore, it is crucial to distinguish Section 399 of the CrPC from Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The latter penalizes the act of "making preparation to commit dacoity" (as discussed in cases like Jain Lal v. King-Emperor (Patna High Court, 1942), STATE OF MAH v. RAVINDRA @ PINTYA KISAN SONWANE (Bombay High Court, 2015), and Mahavir v. State Of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2009)), and is substantively different from the procedural powers of revision vested in the Sessions Judge under CrPC Section 399.

Nature and Scope of Revisional Powers under Section 399 CrPC

The revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Sessions Judge by Section 399 CrPC is essentially a part of the supervisory powers of superior courts. Its primary objective is to rectify errors of jurisdiction, law, or procedure, and to prevent the miscarriage of justice that might arise from incorrect, illegal, or improper findings, sentences, or orders of Magistrates.

Powers Akin to High Court's Revisional Authority

Section 399(1) CrPC is the cornerstone, stipulating that the Sessions Judge may exercise "all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401." Section 401(1) CrPC, in turn, empowers the High Court (and by extension, the Sessions Judge under Section 399(1)) to exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386 (powers of appellate court), 389 (suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail), 390 (arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal), and 391 (appellate court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken).

The Madras High Court in Ramnad District Co-Operative Supply And Marketing Society v. V. Chandran And Another (1980 MLJ CRI 1 483) affirmed that Section 399(1) CrPC empowers the Sessions Court to exercise powers available to the High Court under Section 401(1) CrPC. This implies a broad spectrum of corrective actions, including examining the legality, correctness, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order. The Bombay High Court in KAILASHCHANDRA S/O VITHHALRAO WAGHMARE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR (2016 SCC ONLINE BOM 9350) also acknowledged the applicability of Section 399(1) CrPC in revisional proceedings before the Sessions Court.

Distinction from Power to Order Further Inquiry (Section 398 CrPC)

While Section 398 CrPC grants the High Court or Sessions Judge the power to direct a Magistrate to make further inquiry into a complaint dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged, the powers under Section 399 CrPC are wider. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hansraj Sharma v. Shivcharan Sharma (2004 SCC ONLINE MP 196) clarified that the scope of Section 399 CrPC is broader than that of Section 398. Under Section 399, the Sessions Court is not limited to merely ordering further inquiry but can examine the record for correctness, legality, or propriety and pass appropriate orders, including setting aside an erroneous order of dismissal or discharge and even directing the registration of a case if warranted by the material on record. The court observed that under Section 399, the Sessions Court "can reverse the findings of the Magistrate and give its own finding and can take prima facie view of the allegations made in the complaint read with preliminary evidence led to show as to what offence has been committed by the accused prima facie."

Procedural Aspects and Limitations

The exercise of revisional powers under Section 399 CrPC is governed by specific procedural rules and inherent limitations, many of which are mirrored from Section 401 CrPC by virtue of Section 399(2).

Invocation of Jurisdiction

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 399 CrPC can be invoked by the Sessions Judge suo motu after calling for records under Section 397 CrPC, or upon an application made by an aggrieved party.

Bar on Revising Interlocutory Orders

A significant limitation on revisional jurisdiction, applicable to both the High Court (under Section 397(2)) and the Sessions Judge (by extension through Section 399 read with Section 397), is the bar against revising interlocutory orders. The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State Of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), while dealing with the High Court's powers, extensively discussed the nature of interlocutory orders, clarifying that orders which are not purely procedural but affect the rights of parties may not be strictly "interlocutory" for the purpose of this bar. This principle aids in determining the maintainability of revision petitions before the Sessions Judge as well.

Prohibition against Converting Acquittal into Conviction

Section 401(3) CrPC, which is made applicable to the Sessions Judge by Section 399(2), explicitly prohibits the conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. This underscores that revisional jurisdiction is not a substitute for an appeal against acquittal by the State.

Bar on Second Revision and Finality of Sessions Judge's Order

Section 399(3) CrPC introduces a crucial element of finality. It states: "Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." This provision operates in tandem with Section 397(3) CrPC, which bars a second revision by the same person if they have already applied to either the High Court or the Sessions Judge. The Patna High Court in Ajay Kumar Rana & Ors. v. Janmejay Singh (2002 SCC ONLINE PAT 357) discussed the interplay of Sections 397 and 399, acknowledging the bar under Section 397(3) against a further revision by the same person.

While Section 399(3) declares the Sessions Judge's decision final "in relation to such person" for further revisional proceedings, this does not entirely oust the High Court's constitutional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution or its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, which can be invoked in exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice (as discussed generally in cases like Krishnan And Another v. Krishnaveni And Another (1997 SCC 4 241) and Prabhu Chawla v. State Of Rajasthan And Another (2016 SCC ONLINE SC 905) in the context of High Court powers post-revision).

Opportunity of Being Heard

Section 401(2) CrPC mandates that no order prejudicial to the accused or other person shall be made unless they have had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in their own defence. This principle of natural justice is equally applicable to revisions before the Sessions Judge by virtue of Section 399(2) CrPC.

Interplay with High Court's Powers

Concurrent Jurisdiction (Section 397 CrPC)

Section 397(1) CrPC confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on both the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situated within its or his local jurisdiction. An aggrieved party can choose to approach either forum. However, as per Section 397(3), if an application has been made by any person to either the High Court or the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Distinction from High Court's Inherent Powers (Section 482 CrPC)

It is essential to distinguish the statutory revisional powers of the Sessions Judge under Section 399 CrPC from the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that inherent powers are vested exclusively in the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice (e.g., Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited And Others v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (2009 SCC 2 370)). Sessions Courts do not possess such inherent powers; their revisional authority is strictly circumscribed by the statutory provisions of Sections 397, 399, and 401 CrPC.

Judicial Precedents Illuminating Section 399 CrPC

Several judicial pronouncements have shed light on the application and scope of Section 399 CrPC:

Conclusion

Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, plays a vital role in the Indian criminal justice system by empowering the Sessions Judge with significant revisional authority. This provision ensures a mechanism for correcting judicial errors at a level accessible below the High Court, thereby contributing to the maintenance of legality and propriety in the functioning of subordinate criminal courts. By mirroring many of the High Court's revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC, Section 399 CrPC equips the Sessions Judge to effectively supervise and rectify orders of Magistrates within their jurisdiction. The limitations imposed, such as the bar on revising interlocutory orders and the finality of the decision against further revision by the same party, aim to balance the need for corrective oversight with the imperative of procedural efficiency and prevention of repetitive litigation. The judicial interpretations have consistently affirmed the broad scope of these powers, ensuring that Section 399 CrPC serves as an effective tool for upholding the rule of law and securing the ends of justice.