Is It Mandatory to File a Revision in the High Court or Can It Be Filed in the Sessions Court Also?

The question of whether a revision must be filed mandatorily in the High Court or whether it can also be filed in the Sessions Court arises frequently in criminal litigation. This is because both the High Court and the Sessions Court are empowered to exercise revisional jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

The direct answer to your question is: it is not mandatory to file a criminal revision only in the High Court; it can also be filed in the Sessions Court under Section 399 of the Cr.P.C., depending upon the case and the choice of the litigant, but once a revision is decided by one forum, it cannot be filed again in the other.

Below is a full, detailed explanation with legal provisions, judicial interpretations, and practical guidance.

1. Legal Framework for Revision Petitions

(A) Criminal Revision Jurisdiction

Section 397 Cr.P.C. gives revisional powers to both the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court.
Section 401 Cr.P.C. elaborates on the High Court’s revisional powers.
Section 399 Cr.P.C. deals with the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge.

(B) Civil Revision Jurisdiction

In civil matters, the power of revision lies almost exclusively with the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Sessions Court does not handle civil revisions.

Thus, the question of filing revisions in Sessions Courts arises mainly in criminal cases.

2. Revisional Powers of High Court under Cr.P.C.

Section 401 Cr.P.C.: The High Court can exercise all powers of an appellate court in a revision, except it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction.
The High Court’s revisional power is supervisory in nature — it ensures that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and do not cause miscarriage of justice.
The High Court can act suo motu or on the application of a party.

3. Revisional Powers of Sessions Court under Cr.P.C.

Section 399 Cr.P.C. empowers the Sessions Judge to exercise revisional powers over the judgments/orders of Magistrates subordinate to him.
The Sessions Judge has, subject to the same limitations, all the powers of the High Court in relation to revision.
The Sessions Court can also act suo motu or on application.
This provides an intermediate level of scrutiny before the matter escalates to the High Court.

4. Section 397 Cr.P.C.: Common Gateway for Revision

Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. reads:

“The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situated within its or his local jurisdiction for the purposes of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed…”

This makes it clear that both the High Court and the Sessions Court can entertain revision petitions.

5. Prohibition Against Multiple Revisions

Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. provides:

“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.”

This means:

A litigant has a choice to file a revision petition either in the High Court or in the Sessions Court.
But once one forum has been approached, the other is barred from entertaining a second revision on the same matter.
This is to prevent forum shopping and multiple challenges to the same order.

6. Practical Meaning of Section 397(3)

If you first file a revision in the Sessions Court and lose, you cannot then go to the High Court with a second revision.
If you first file a revision in the High Court and lose, you cannot then go to the Sessions Court with the same matter.
However, if there are different orders (not the same order), separate revisions may be filed.

7. When to Prefer Sessions Court Over High Court

There are several practical reasons why a litigant might prefer the Sessions Court:

Accessibility: Sessions Courts are available in almost every district, making it easier for litigants and lawyers.
Cost-Effective: Filing fees and incidental costs are usually lower.
Speed: Sessions Courts may decide revisions faster due to lighter dockets than High Courts.
Local Jurisdiction: The Sessions Judge is geographically closer and more familiar with local subordinate courts.

8. When to Prefer High Court Over Sessions Court

Certain cases may justify approaching the High Court directly:

Complex or Precedent-Setting Matters: Where the matter involves significant questions of law or constitutional interpretation.
Grave Miscarriage of Justice: Where exceptional circumstances exist.
Orders Passed by Courts of Session: In such cases, only the High Court can exercise revisional powers (since Sessions Judge cannot review his own order).
Suo Motu Powers: High Courts can exercise supervisory jurisdiction on their own motion.

9. Difference Between High Court and Sessions Court in Revision

Aspect	High Court	Sessions Court
Statutory Provision	Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C.	Sections 397 & 399 Cr.P.C.
Territorial Reach	State-wide	District-level
Suo Motu Powers	Yes	Yes
Powers	Appellate powers, supervisory jurisdiction	Similar to High Court but limited to Magistrates’ orders
Second Revision	Barred if first filed in Sessions Court	Barred if first filed in High Court

10. Scope of Orders Challenged Before Sessions Court

The Sessions Court can entertain revisions against:

Convictions or acquittals by Magistrates (subject to appellate remedy).
Interim orders passed by Magistrates.
Orders of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Orders relating to custody of property under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
Orders under special Acts triable by Magistrates.

11. Scope of Orders Challenged Before High Court

The High Court can entertain revisions against:

Orders passed by Sessions Judges.
Orders passed by Magistrates directly.
Orders under special statutes that confer jurisdiction directly on the High Court.
Exceptional cases involving gross miscarriage of justice.

12. Judicial Interpretation

Several landmark cases explain the interplay between High Court and Sessions Court revisional jurisdiction:

Anoop Singh v. State of Punjab (1992): The Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. applies strictly — once a revision is filed in one forum, the other forum cannot entertain it.
Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe (2010): Reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and should be invoked sparingly.
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977): Clarified the difference between interlocutory orders and revisable orders.

13. Special Situations

Multiple Parties: If one accused files a revision in Sessions Court, another accused can still file a separate revision in High Court for the same order, but the High Court’s discretion applies.
Different Orders: If there are distinct orders in the same case, separate revisions can be filed.
Transfer of Revision: High Court has power under Section 407 Cr.P.C. to transfer cases, but not revision petitions between courts.

14. Civil vs. Criminal Revisions

In civil matters, revisions are filed only in High Courts under Section 115 CPC. Sessions Courts have no role.
In criminal matters, revisions can be filed either in the High Court or Sessions Court under Cr.P.C.

15. Procedure to File Revision in Sessions Court

Draft the revision petition clearly stating the impugned order, grounds of illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.
Attach a certified copy of the order.
File within 90 days from the date of the order (Article 131 of Limitation Act).
If delayed, file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Appear and argue before the Sessions Judge.

16. Procedure to File Revision in High Court

The process is similar but governed by the High Court’s own rules of practice and procedure. Often requires:

Court fees as prescribed.
Indexing and pagination.
Affidavits and supporting documents.
Compliance with High Court formatting.

17. Strategic Considerations

Evaluate the pros and cons of each forum before filing.
Remember that the High Court can call records even without an application, but Sessions Court generally acts on applications.
Consult the High Court’s or Sessions Court’s cause list to estimate disposal times.
If the order challenged was passed by a Sessions Judge (e.g., as an appellate court), then the revision lies only in the High Court.

18. Conclusion

To conclude, it is not mandatory to file a revision only in the High Court; a criminal revision can also be filed in the Sessions Court under Section 399 Cr.P.C. The choice rests with the litigant, but once a revision petition is filed and decided by one forum (either High Court or Sessions Court), the same person cannot approach the other forum with another revision against the same order due to the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

In civil matters, however, revisions are filed only in the High Court under Section 115 CPC as Sessions Courts have no revisional jurisdiction in civil cases.

The system thus gives litigants flexibility and accessibility but also enforces finality by preventing multiple revisions. Lawyers and litigants should strategically decide which forum to approach based on the nature of the order, the urgency of the matter, costs, convenience, and the chances of success.

Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.

Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.

Adcocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)

Contact: 88271 22304