The article analyzes the current procedure for the use of one of the most well-known in the Russian judicial practice procedural ways of correcting admitted judicial errors in criminal cases already considered by the courts. In this capacity, the resumption of proceedings in a criminal case is postponed due to new or newly discovered circumstances, the procedural possibilities of which are very high. Considering this institution, the author draws attention to the fact that the revision of the final judgment in cassation and supervision in Russia now takes place only in cases where violations of the law are revealed that have affected or could affect the thoroughness and completeness of the investigation of the circumstances of the case, the correctness of the criminal-legal assessment of the deed, as well as to ensure the rights of participants in criminal proceedings. In such cases, the cancellation of the final judgment and the return of the criminal case for a new trial before the first or appellate court allow the criminal investigative bodies and the court to remove their own violations. And, regardless of whether they were intentional, or were the result of a conscientious error. The fact that these violations could and should have been prevented or corrected before the relevant decision on the criminal case came into force does not eliminate the need for their subsequent correction. Describing the procedural procedures for the resumption of proceedings in a criminal case due to new or newly discovered circumstances, the author draws attention to the fact that their specifics are predetermined by the nature of judicial errors, for which, in fact, this production is intended. He also notes that there is nothing exceptional, extraordinary in it, since it is not applied either in place of or after other possibilities for reviewing the judicial act have been exhausted, but quite independently, i.e. if circumstances are discovered that either arose after the criminal case was examined by a court, or already existed at the time of its consideration, but were not known to the court. However, at the same time, not any of them should be taken into account, but only those that do not allow ultimately to evaluate the decisions made in the criminal case as legitimate, justified and fair.