CHAPTER XXX REFERENCE AND REVISION

Section 401: High Court's powers of revision

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (repealed)

Repealed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024.

(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.

(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction.

(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.

(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

Now in the BNSS

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

401. High Court’s powers of revision.

BNSS 442

Questions on this section

2 questions in 1 of our papers cite Section 401. Try these from the free papers:

1. Consider the following statements about Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (30 July 2026): 1. The bar in Section 401(3) CrPC (now Section 442(3) BNSS) only prevents the High Court in revision from converting an acquittal into a conviction; it does not limit its power to set aside an erroneous conviction. 2. The Court declared Rule 48 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008 ultra vires. 3. Revisions against convictions recorded for the first time by an appellate court call for a more liberal exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
2. With reference to Khalil Pasha v. Abdul Rasheed (28 July 2026), consider the following statements: 1. The Court noted that a victim's right to appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was inserted only in 2009. 2. The Court noted that where an appeal lies but a revision is filed under an erroneous belief that no appeal lies, the High Court may treat the revision as an appeal, a power now in Section 442(5) BNSS. 3. The Court upheld the High Court's order reversing the acquittal of the accused. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Practise questions on Criminal Law