KRISHNAN AND ANR. versus KRISHNA VENI AND ANR.

KRISHNAN AND ANR. versus KRISHNA VENI AND ANR.

While a second revision under Section 397(1) is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., the High Court retains suo motu, inherent and supervisory powers under Sections 401, 482, and 483, which may be exercised, though sparingly, to prevent miscarriage of justice, correct failure of justice, abuse of process, or procedural irregularity. The prohibition does not apply when the State seeks revision under Section 401. High Court’s order remitting the case to Magistrate for trial was justified.

Parties
Appellant: Krishnan; Appellant: Tulasiammal; Respondent: Krishna Veni
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment Dated 26.3.92
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Revision Jurisdiction, Inherent Powers, Second Revision Bar, Superintendence, Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Revision Jurisdiction Inherent Powers Second Revision Bar Superintendence Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishnan

Appellant

Tulasiammal

Appellant

Krishna Veni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment Dated 26.3.92

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second revision before the High Court is barred by Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code after dismissal by Sessions Court
  2. 2 Whether High Court has power under Sections 401, 482, 483 to interfere to prevent miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

While a second revision under Section 397(1) is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., the High Court retains suo motu, inherent and supervisory powers under Sections 401, 482, and 483, which may be exercised, though sparingly, to prevent miscarriage of justice, correct failure of justice, abuse of process, or procedural irregularity. The prohibition does not apply when the State seeks revision under Section 401. High Court’s order remitting the case to Magistrate for trial was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Case remitted to Magistrate for decision on merits
  • Supreme Court directs that question of merits is not considered at this stage; jurisdictional issue decided only