Section 397 of CrPC

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the surrendering of an accused is not necessary before preferring a criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Sanjay Nagayach v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• In this case, the Applicant has filed revision application against judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge by which sentence of applicant has been enhanced.
• The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that notice is required to the applicant before enhancing the sentence.
• It is also argued on behalf of applicant that surrendering of applicant is not necessary while preferring criminal revision before this Court.
• The High Court allowed the revision application.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat observed that there is no bar under Section 397 of CrPC for entertaining a revision application even though the applicant is not in confinement.
• It was further added that if the accused is in jail when the execution of the sentence is suspended or when the judgment of the appellate court itself is suspended, then he/she can be released on bail. In case he is not in jail then, he could be asked by the court to furnish bail bonds for appearance before the high court when required.

What is Section 397 of CrPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the calling for records to exercise powers of revision. It states that—

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation. —All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(3) 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.

Case Law

• In the case of Easwaramurthy Vs. N. Krishnaswamy (2006), the Madras High Court held that the words 'direct that execution of sentence or order be suspended' mentioned in Section 397(1) of CrPC must be read 'dis-conjunctively' from words 'and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his bond pending the examination of the record.