Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1141 (PAT)

Niranjan Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-25

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.6.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st" Class, Danapur in Trial No. 38/2001 by which the learned Magistrate has been pleased to allow further evidence under the provisions of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that on a petition filed by A.P.P. the learned Magistrate re-opened the-evidence of the prosecution against which this petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier also similar petition was filed for examination of the witnesses under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) but on the ground that the lawyer who filed the petition was not empowered to file such petition, even the revisional court did not interfere with that order and with observation that the learned Judicial Magistrate can examine the remaining witnesses if he feels necessary. He has further submitted that once the case was fixed for judgment the court should have delivered the judgment. His further argument is that a criminal court has no power to review its own order and the court should have also considered the fact that the case was pending since last eight years. As such, the order of the court below is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. Perused the order impugned. There is no dispute that the criminal court does not have any power to review its own order but in this case the earlier order of rejection was on technical ground. The petition was not properly filed as the lawyer who filed the petition was not empowered on behalf of the State. As such the petition was nonest and thus rejected. Thus, it is not a case where earlier order has been recalled/reviewed by the court below. Under the provisions of section 311 of the Code the trial court has vast powers and it can call/re-call any witness before pronouncement of the judgment if it considers essential for just decision of the case. As such I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.