Satyajit Banerjee & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 115

Issues

• Was it proper for the High Court, in revision, to set aside the acquittal and order a de novo trial?
• Could the High Court suggest using Section 311 CrPC to summon fresh witnesses and “fill gaps”?
• Could the High Court’s remarks unduly influence the trial court on retrial?
• Can a retrial be ordered without a fundamental defect in the trial process?

Rules

• Revision = Exceptional Remedy: Use only for manifest miscarriage of justice; not because another view is possible.
• Section 401(3) CrPC: No converting acquittal into conviction in revision; retrial cannot be an indirect method.
• Section 311 CrPC: Meant to discover truth, not to patch up prosecution lapses.
• Neutral Retrial: Trial court must remain uninfluenced; earlier evidence stays on record and must be evaluated with any additional evidence.

Arguments

Judgment

• Revision lies for rare, clear injustice—not to re-try facts afresh.
• Sec. 401(3) CrPC bars turning acquittal into conviction; retrial cannot be used as a backdoor.
• Sec. 311 CrPC is not a tool to cure prosecution lapses; use it cautiously to discover truth.
• High Court’s suggestive remarks were inappropriate; trial court must decide independently.
• Best Bakery principles were inapplicable (no farcical trial or intimidation shown).
• Result: Retrial may proceed, but with independence; earlier evidence remains on record. Direction implying conviction was struck down.

Ratio

Revisional power is narrow. Courts cannot use retrial or Sec. 311 CrPC to repair the prosecution’s case or to indirectly reverse an acquittal. Any retrial must be neutral; all earlier evidence survives and is reconsidered with any new material.

Why It Matters

• Protects the finality of acquittals from backdoor interference.
• Defines fair use of Sec. 311 CrPC—truth seeking, not case-repair.
• Guides High Courts on responsible revision and neutral retrials.

Key Takeaways

1. Revision corrects clear injustice, not mere disagreement on evidence.
2. Sec. 401(3): no conversion of acquittal into conviction via revision or retrial.
3. Sec. 311 must not plug gaps; use to clarify truth only.
4. Retrial court must be independent; earlier evidence stays on record.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Re-View, not Re-Do.”

1. Rare Fix: Use revision only for clear injustice.
2. No Backdoor: Retrial can’t reverse acquittal indirectly.
3. Truth Tools: Sec. 311 clarifies, doesn’t cure gaps.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Limits of High Court’s revisional power to order retrial and to invoke Sec. 311 CrPC.

Rule: Revision for exceptional injustice; Sec. 401(3) bars converting acquittal to conviction; Sec. 311 for truth, not repairs.

Application: High Court’s approach risked filling gaps and biasing retrial; SC preserved retrial but removed suggestive directions.

Conclusion: Retrial upheld with neutrality; no implied mandate to convict; earlier evidence remains relevant.

Glossary

Revisional Jurisdiction

High Court’s limited power to correct clear legal or procedural errors causing injustice.

Section 311 CrPC

Power to summon/re-summon a witness for a just decision.

Section 401(3) CrPC

Bars converting an acquittal into a conviction in revision.

FAQs

Related Cases