The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order passed by an inferior Court. The High Court cannot alter or review a judgment earlier rendered in a revision, except for the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to recall an order passed in a criminal revision filed by the respondent-herein, holding that the conviction of the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, shall not affect the service career of the respondent adversely, the New India Assurance Company limited which is the employer of the respondent, has come up with the above appeal.

3. The respondent herein joined the services of the appellant, way back in the year 1985. The daughter-in-law of the respondent lodged a complaint in Criminal Complaint No.7534 of 2008 not only against the respondent’s son but also against the other family members including the respondent herein. The Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, by a Judgment dated 30.01.2012 convicted the respondent and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine of Rs.1000/-.

4. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior by a Judgment dated 5.06.2012. However, the criminal revision filed by the respondent in Cr.R.No.402 of 2012 was partly allowed by the High Court by a judgment dated 29.06.2012, reducing the punishment to the period of sentence already undergone, subject to the respondent depositing a compensation/fine amount of Rs.5000/.

5. Thereafter, the respondent appears to have moved a Miscellaneous Application in Criminal Case No.8951 of 2012, purportedly for correction of the Order dated 29.06.2012 passed in the revision. On the said application, the High Court passed an order on 23.11.2012 (after five months of original order), clarifying that the conviction shall not affect the service career of the respondent adversely, in any manner. This order was passed by the High Court on the ground that the factum of employment of the respondent with the appellant company was not brought to the notice of the Court when the revision was disposed of and that the conviction may impact the service career of the respondent adversely.

6. Upon being informed of the said order of the High Court, the appellant-company moved an application in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2417 of 2013 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for recalling the Order dated 23.11.2012. This application was moved on the basis that the right of the employer to take note of any misconduct on the part of the employee, which led to his conviction by criminal court, cannot be taken away in a collateral proceeding behind the back of the employer. But the High Court dismissed the miscellaneous application by Order dated 3.02.2014 on the short ground that a review of the order passed by a coordinate Bench was not permissible and that the appellant will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings. It is against the said Order of the High Court dated 3.02.2014 that the employer has come up with the above appeal.

7. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to whether in a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of conviction, the High Court could have, even while affirming the conviction, taken away the right of the employer to exercise disciplinary control over an employee, on the basis of the conviction by the criminal court.

8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.

9. Obviously the power conferred by Sections 397 and 401 are actually powers of superintendence/supervision over inferior