it may well be established that the sessions court has revisional powers to remedy any jurisdictional fault or oversight, or to rectify a severe miscarriage of justice caused by any lower court during practicing their powers. Higher courts have these revision powers, but there is no certainty that the revision petition will be heard by the higher courts.
The special advantage of revisional jurisdiction is that even the sessions court can practice suo moto revisional powers where the subject matter is in the interest of the general public. It is important to note that while interlocutory orders in civil cases are subject to revision, interlocutory orders in criminal cases concerning the rights of parties or any specific aspect of the case are only subject to revision.
The Sessions Courts’ revisionary jurisdiction is broad extensively, and the Sessions Courts are given wide range of powers in this area. It would be a stretch to claim that no type of judicial wrong may pass through this authority. The Sessions Court has been authorized to employ its inherent jurisdiction while dealing with instances of revision, according to several judgements. Both procedural and substantive problems are covered by these inherent abilities. However, it can only handle a question of law and not re-evaluate evidence.
[i] Siraj Ahmad vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh [2020] CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 6541 of 2020.
[ii] Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 46
[iii] Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460
[iv] State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mendu(2017) 3SCC 198
[v] Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Others (2012) 9 SCC 460
