High Court's powers of revision
Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with high Court's powers of revision. 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 427, 430, 431 and 432 or on a Court of Session by section 344, and, The Act came into force on 01 Jul 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 427, 430, 431 and 432 or on a Court of Session by section 344, 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 433.
(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 advocate 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 of conviction.
(4) Where under this Sanhita 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 Sanhita 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.
Section 442, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 401 High Court's Powers of revisions Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- s. 344 Power to direct tender of pardon
- s. 427 Powers of Appellate Court
- s. 430 Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail
- s. 431 Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal
- s. 432 Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken
- s. 433 Procedure where Judges of Court of appeal are equally divided
Referred to by 2
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Johar v. Mangal Prasad
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-6.pdf 2008-01-30 DATE VERIFIED. Sinha/Sirpurkar. Crl A 215/2008. Isolates CrPC 401(3): a High Court in revision cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction, directly or by a remand that binds the trial court to convict. Limited revisional jurisdiction. Map crpc 401 + BNSS 442 successor (near-identical 0.8667). Do not pad ipc 323 (trial conviction mentioned; this file does not isolate 323 ingredients) or remap crpc 397 (already filled).
On this section: Successor of CrPC 401 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8667). The no-convert-acquittal holding carries to BNSS 442.
-
State of Haryana vs Pirthi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A life convict has a legal right to have his case for pre-mature release considered under the remission policy or scheme existing on the date of his conviction, not the policy prevailing on the date when his case is considered for pre-mature release. This right is grounded in the Prisons Act 1894, constitutional safeguards under Articles 20(1) and 21, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. When a remission policy is referable to the constitutional power under Article 161, it represents a constitutional mandate superior to statutory restrictions under Section 433-A CrPC, and cannot be retrospectively replaced by a stricter policy. The State must exercise its power of remission and clemency keeping in view the expectation crystallized in favor of the convict at the time of his conviction, and benefits should be construed liberally in favor of the convict.
On this section: Pertains to release of prisoners; cited in context of superintendent's power to report cases
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Governs the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court, including the discretion to exercise it suo moto or at the instance of a third party.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: Revisional Court power; Court held accused must be given hearing opportunity before revising order prejudicially, overturning prior practice
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Power of High Court in revision - invoked in the criminal revision to challenge charge framing order
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences at one trial, including one offence for which the sentence is life imprisonment, the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which limits aggregate imprisonment to 14 years, applies to prevent consecutive sentences. All sentences must run concurrently because life imprisonment means imprisonment for the entire remaining life of the convict, and the concept of consecutive sentences does not apply when one sentence is life imprisonment. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 CrPC includes life imprisonment as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, and life imprisonment is not equivalent to 14 years or 20 years but means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convict's natural life unless remitted by the appropriate Government.
On this section: Power of appropriate Government to remit sentences; cited to show only Government can reduce life imprisonment
-
Duryodhan Rout vs State of Orissa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted of multiple offences including one for which life imprisonment is the sentence, all sentences imposed under the Indian Penal Code must run concurrently rather than consecutively, because life imprisonment extends for the entire remaining span of the convicted person's natural life and is not confined to any definite period. The proviso to subsection (2) of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which limits aggregate punishment to 14 years in cases of consecutive sentences, precludes the imposition of consecutive sentences when life imprisonment forms part of the conviction, as this would exceed the statutory limit. The term 'imprisonment' in Section 31 Cr.P.C includes life imprisonment, and life imprisonment means imprisonment for the full span of life unless commuted by the appropriate Government under Sections 55, 433, or 433A of Cr.P.C.
On this section: Commutation of sentences; referenced as a provision under which appropriate government can remit life sentences
-
Mohit @ Sonu vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order of a trial court refusing to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not a purely interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. because it substantially affects the rights of the accused by determining whether they will face trial. Therefore, such order must be challenged through revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., not through inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Additionally, when any court (whether exercising revisional or inherent jurisdiction) passes an order prejudicial to the rights of an accused or any person, such person has a fundamental right to notice and opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and the principles of natural justice before such prejudicial order is passed. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other specific remedy is available in the Code.
On this section: Specific powers of High Court in revision; subsection (2) requires that no prejudicial order be made without giving opportunity of hearing to the affected person
-
State of Haryana vs Rajbir Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a remission or short sentencing policy exists on the date of a life convict's conviction and is referable to Article 161 of the Constitution, that policy becomes the basis for evaluating the convict's case for pre-mature release. A subsequent, stricter policy issued after the conviction cannot be applied retroactively to override the convict's legitimate expectation of being considered under the policy prevailing at the time of conviction. The State has an obligation to at least exercise its discretion in relation to the honest expectation perceived by the convict at the time of his conviction. However, if a more lenient policy prevails at the date of consideration for remission, the convict should be afforded the benefit of that more favorable policy. While the convict has no absolute right to pre-mature release, he possesses a legal right to have his case considered in accordance with the relevant rules and policies. The constitutional clemency power under Articles 72 and 161 remains unfettered and superior to statutory restrictions under Section 433-A Cr.P.C., and can be exercised even before statutory minimum periods are completed in exceptional circumstances.
On this section: Procedure for release of prisoners on remission or commutation of sentence by government
-
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing of charges under criminal law, when a court evaluates material on record, if the facts taken at their face value disclose the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offense, and if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offense, the charge should be framed even if the probative value of the evidence cannot be fully assessed at this stage. For the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, instigation can be inferred where the accused by his acts, omissions, or continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, provided the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. The mere fact that words were uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment without mens rea does not constitute instigation, but a sustained course of conduct involving harassment, threats, and mental torture that leaves the deceased with no alternative can constitute instigation even in the absence of explicit words to that effect.
On this section: Scope of revisional powers of High Court; limits revisional jurisdiction to cases where courts have exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity
-
Raghu Raj Singh Rousha vs Shivam Sundaram Promoters(p)l
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an order passed by a lower court in criminal proceedings is sought to be revised before the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the proposed order would prejudice the accused or any person, that person has a fundamental right to be heard before such order is passed, regardless of whether the proceedings are at the pre-cognizance or post-cognizance stage. The phrase 'accused or other person' in Section 401(2) CrPC encompasses anyone adversely affected by the High Court's decision, and the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) is applicable to all proceedings before the High Court, including criminal revision petitions at pre-summoning stages.
On this section: High Court's power of revision with Sub-section (2) being the core provision requiring that no order prejudicial to accused be made without giving opportunity of hearing; this provision was interpreted to apply at pre-summoning stage when order prejudices the accused
-
R. S. Mishra vs State of Orissa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a judicial officer at the charge framing stage under Section 228 Cr.P.C. drops or dilutes a serious charge against an accused, although the explicit statutory requirement to record reasons applies only to discharge orders under Section 227, minimum reasons in nutshell must be recorded to show consideration of material on record, especially when the material contains credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence constituting prima facie case. Failure to do so shows non-application of mind and opens the judicial order to revision. However, corrective observations by High Court to the Administration suggesting performance verification before promotion, while addressing a serious judicial deficiency, do not constitute derogatory remarks that harm judicial independence if they are not cast in disparaging language and are necessary for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Administrative consequences such as denial of promotion flowing from verified performance deficiency are distinguishable from punitive contempt proceedings and do not violate judicial independence.
On this section: Suo-moto revision powers of High Court; invoked by High Court to review the charge framing order; though retrial was not ordered due to accused already serving sentence
-
Girish Sharma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The decision of a prosecutor to cite a person as a witness instead of charging him as an accused in a chargesheet is not final and binding on the Court. While Section 306 CrPC provides a formal procedure for obtaining pardon to examine an accomplice as a witness, it is not the only avenue available. The Court must ultimately decide whether to take cognizance by balancing the interest of justice - weighing whether the person should be charged as an accused versus their utility as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused. Mere existence of incriminating material is insufficient to mandate cognizance; the Court must consider broader prosecutorial strategy and the practical impact on achieving justice in the case.
On this section: Revision jurisdiction under which the High Court entertained the revision petition from other accused seeking to summon the appellants as accused
-
Neetu Dixit @ Nisha vs State Of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under criminal procedure, the court is required only to evaluate whether there exists a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed based on the material on record, accepting the prosecution's materials as true at that stage. Material discrepancies in evidence, allegations of planted evidence, and procedural irregularities are matters exclusively within the domain of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the charge-framing stage by way of criminal revision. The distinction between prima facie case (sufficient for charge-framing) and proof beyond reasonable doubt (required for conviction) is fundamental to criminal procedure, and the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the trial court on evidentiary matters without trial.
On this section: Criminal revision jurisdiction; used as basis for filing this revision petition to quash charge-framing order
-
Dharam Nath vs Krishan Kumar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a cheque has been duly signed and issued by the accused, and the holder of the cheque has established the existence of a legally enforceable debt through credible evidence (including testimony regarding possession of pronote and receipt), the accused cannot escape liability by simple denial. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the holder of the cheque, and to rebut this presumption, the accused must present cogent facts and circumstances making it plausible that no debt existed. Technical objections regarding non-production of original documents are not sustainable when the accused had opportunity to demand their production during cross-examination but failed to do so. The burden shifts to the accused to prove absence of debt, not merely to deny it.
On this section: Provides jurisdiction for High Court to exercise revisional powers to quash conviction; basis for filing this petition
-
Shaik Yousuf vs Syed Moosa
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 401, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Criminal Revision petition becomes infructuous and liable to be dismissed when the underlying conviction order has already been finalized by the trial court and no further orders are required to be passed by the High Court.
On this section: Provides the power to the High Court to exercise powers of revision in relation to criminal matters
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Shelly Dixit and Mr. Krish, Advs. versus JASHANPREET SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Adv. along with the respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL J U D G M E N T % 1. The present criminal revision under Section 438 and Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<sup>1</sup> (old Section 397 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<sup>2</sup> ) arises from SC No. 119/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge<sup>3</sup> /Special Judge (NDPS), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The …
Questions about Section 442
What have the courts held on Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Johar v. Mangal Prasad (30 Jan 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 401, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 401 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8667). The no-convert-acquittal holding carries to BNSS 442. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 442, section 442 BNSS, section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 442 bnss in crpc and 442 bnss act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Johar v. Mangal Prasad (30 Jan 2008).
What should I read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 344 (Power to direct tender of pardon), section 427 (Powers of Appellate Court), section 430 (Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail), section 431 (Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal), and on 2 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 401 (High Court's Powers of revisions), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 442, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.