Revision lets a higher court re-examine every mid-trial order, just like an appeal.

The power of revision cannot be exercised over interlocutory (interim) orders passed during an ongoing appeal, inquiry, or trial; it is meant for final or clearly improper findings, sentences, or orders.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 438

Calling for records to exercise powers of revision

(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 as 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 his own bond or bail 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 439.§

(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.§

Why this exists

Not every error in a lower court's decision can or should go through a full appeal; revision is a supervisory tool that lets higher courts step in to correct clear illegality, impropriety, or irregularity even without a formal appeal. Excluding interlocutory orders prevents this power from being misused to stall ongoing proceedings at every intermediate step. This corresponds to section 397 of the earlier CrPC.

How courts read it

Courts have consistently held that revisional jurisdiction is meant to correct manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, not to re-appreciate evidence like an appeal; it is exercised sparingly and the bar on revising interlocutory orders is strictly enforced to prevent delay in trials.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Revision lets a higher court re-examine every mid-trial order, just like an appeal.
Fact: The power of revision cannot be exercised over interlocutory (interim) orders passed during an ongoing appeal, inquiry, or trial; it is meant for final or clearly improper findings, sentences, or orders.