JUDGMENT : PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh as well as Mr. G. Tarak, the learned counsel representing Respondent No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CrPC) challenging the judgment and order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, Papum Pare passed in Criminal Appeal No.01/2022 affirming the judgment dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia in C.R. Case No.69/2018. 3. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to pay fine with default stipulations. He filed an appeal before the court of Sessions. The Sessions Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. At this stage, paragraph 56 of the judgment of the appellate court needs to be quoted. It reads as under: “56. The settled principle of law is that it is not for the revisional court to reanalyse and reinterpret the evidence on record. Further, the party cannot raise any new plea at appellate stage and the material and records which were not placed before the trial court cannot be entertained at this stage.” 4. On a plain reading of the said paragraph, it is clear that the learned appellate court while disposing of the appeal considered itself to be a revisional court. There is no doubt that there is a difference between an appeal and a revision. The appellate court has to appreciate the evidence and has to arrive at an independent decision. But in a revision petition, the petitioner has to claim gross legal error in the judgment of the trial court. The error has to be jurisdictional error. 5. Appeal is a process of re-examination of the judgment and decree, or order or the decisions passed by the original court is a suit or in a case. The expression “appeal” has not been defined in the code, but it may be defined as “the judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of an inferior court”. 6. Revision is re-working and re-writing. Revision, meaning "to see again," takes place during the entire writing process as we change words, rewrite sentences, and shift paragraphs from one location to another in our essay. 6. Revision is re-working and re-writing. Revision, meaning "to see again," takes place during the entire writing process as we change words, rewrite sentences, and shift paragraphs from one location to another in our essay. Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving. 7. The distinction between the appeal and revision reads as under: (1) An appeal lies to a superior court, which may not necessary be a High Court, while a revision application under the code lies only to the High Court. (2) An appeal lies only from the decrees and appealable order, but a revision application lies from any decision of a court subordinate to the High Court from which no appeal lies to the High Court or to any subordinate court. (3) A right of appeal is a substantive right conferred by the statute, while the revisional power of the High Court is purely discretionary. (4) An appeal abates if the legal representatives of a deceased party are not brought on record within the prescribed period. A revision application however does not abate in such case. The High Court may at any time bring the proper parties on the record of the case. (5) The grounds for an appeal and revision application are also different. An appeal lies on a question of fact or law or of fact and law, while a revision application lies only on the ground of jurisdictional error. (6) In case of appeal the memorandum of appeal must be filed before the appellate court by the aggrieved party, but filing of an application is not necessary in case of revision. (7) Ordinarily appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on question of law as well as on facts of the case whereas revisional jurisdiction involves only the question of law and this jurisdiction is never considered a rehearing. (8) An appeal is considered to be a consideration of the original proceeding whereas unlike appeal revisional is not the constitution of the original proceeding. (9) An appeal is a right based remedy and can be claimed as of right if there is statutory existence of it, where the revision is the purely discretionary remedy and cannot be claimed as of right. 8. One has to bear in mind the important difference between an appellate jurisdiction and a revisional jurisdiction. (9) An appeal is a right based remedy and can be claimed as of right if there is statutory existence of it, where the revision is the purely discretionary remedy and cannot be claimed as of right. 8. One has to bear in mind the important difference between an appellate jurisdiction and a revisional jurisdiction. A right of appeal is a vested right in the litigant, it is a substantive right, and if the appellant satisfies the Court of appeal that he is right in his contention, the Court of appeal has no discretion not to make the order in his favour. In the second place, when a Court of appeal hears the appeal, the appeal constitutes a continuation of the suit. A judgment having been passed by the trial Court, on an appeal being preferred against that judgment the appeal in effect is the rehearing of the case by the Court of appeal. In the case of revision, the revision application does not constitute a continuation of the case or the rehearing of the case. A right is given to the revisional Court to exercise its powers of supervision over subordinate Courts or tribunals and it is in the exercise of that right that the revisional Court passes its orders. It is not obligatory upon the revisional Court to interfere with the order under revision even though the order may be improper or even illegal. When the revisional Court does interfere with the order of the Court below, the result is not that the order of the lower Court is merged in the order passed by the revisional Court, but the result is that the order of the revisional Court sets aside or modifies the order of the lower Court. Whereas in the case of an appeal when the appeal is dismissed the appellate Court confirms the judgment of the trial Court, in the case of a revisional Court when it dismisses the petition in revision all that it does is that it does not interfere with the order of the Court below. The effect of the dismissal of the petition in revision is not to confirm the order of the trial Court because no confirmation is necessary from the revisional Court. When the revisional Court dismisses the petition, the true effect in law is that it refuses to exercise the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon it. The effect of the dismissal of the petition in revision is not to confirm the order of the trial Court because no confirmation is necessary from the revisional Court. When the revisional Court dismisses the petition, the true effect in law is that it refuses to exercise the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon it. Whereas, when the appellate Court dismisses the appeal, it is exercising its appellate jurisdiction and in exercise of that jurisdiction it dismisses the appeal and confirms the order of the lower Court. Therefore, it will be noticed that the distinction between an appellate jurisdiction and a revisional jurisdiction is vital and it does not necessarily follow that the principles which apply to an appeal must necessarily apply to a revision. The basis of the decisions that the order of the trial Court becomes merged in the order of the appellate Court is that there is a continuation of the suit and a rehearing of the suit by the appellate Court. It is also based on the fact that the appellate Court has no discretion not to admit an appeal if an appeal lies or not to give the relief to the appellant if he is entitled to the relief in law. 9. Reverting to the case in hand, instead of appreciating evidence independently by an appellate court, the appellate court presumed itself to be a revisional court. The decision of the appellate court is erroneous. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, Papum Pare passed in Criminal Appeal No.01/2022 affirming the judgment dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia in C.R. Case No.69/2018, is bad in law and stands set aside. The appeal is remanded to the appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to both sides. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Send back the LCR.