Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 816 (ALL)

TEJ SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-04-04

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble N.A. Moonis, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA and have been taken through the record. 2. The revisionist had approached this Court challenging the order dated 15.10.2011 whereby the learned Sessions Judge Court No. 17 Meerut summoned the revisionist to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302/120B IPC. 3. The revision of the revisionist came up before this Bench on 24.2.2012 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the revision was dismissed by detailed order. A recall application supported by an affidavit has been filed with a prayer that the order dated 24.2.2012 may be recalled and pass fresh order in accordance with the pleadings of the parties. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the order passed by this Court is against the weight of evidence on record. The co-accused persons have already been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 9.6.2011 therefore, the principle of stare decisis with regard to the trial of the revisionist is barred. 5. Per contra learned AGA contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the High Court to review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction. 6. Before analyzing the merit of the review application, it is worthwhile to quote Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs as under : 362. Court not to alter judgment : Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by another law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Section 362 of the Code prohibits the Court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is complete and no criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. Section 362 of the Code prohibits the Court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is complete and no criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. In Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, 2001 (1) SCC 169 , it has been held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that no Court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error and that this section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless former order of final disposal is set aside by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers a Court to proceed against any person if it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed an offence for which he can be tried. 8. For proper appreciation of the case in hand, it was necessary that cognizance taken against the accused revisionist should be tried in the same manner as against the other co-accused. The revisionist had deliberately filed a certified copy of the order of this Court dated 27.10.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 1555A/96 which pertains to the revisionist as his trial was separated on account of his non-appearance in Sessions Trial No. 1555 of 1996. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution in the Sessions Trial No. 1555 of 1996 which was kept pending and only after acquittal of the co-accused persons, the applicant is now trying to take benefit that there is no evidence against him. The evidence recorded in the separated trial cannot be read in the case of the revisionist. The innocence of the revisionist cannot be borne out at this stage without conducting the trial. The revisionist is trying to intermingle his case with the co-accused who were acquitted after facing the trial. The evidence recorded in the separated trial cannot be read in the case of the revisionist. The innocence of the revisionist cannot be borne out at this stage without conducting the trial. The revisionist is trying to intermingle his case with the co-accused who were acquitted after facing the trial. If the trial against the other accused is over, such a person who has subsequently been summoned may also be tried and in case there is no evidence showing his complicity. he may also be given the benefit. The quashing of the summoning order issued against the revisionist on the basis of material available before the Court below without holding the trial would amount to interference in the administration of justice which dehors the Rule. 9. Having regard to the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into account the provision of Section 362 Cr.P.C. this Court abstains from entering into the merit of the review application. The order dated 24.2.2012 has been passed by this Court in extenso dealing with all the points raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Prima facie satisfaction expressed by the Court below cannot be drifted away at this stage when the Court below has passed the detailed order dated 15.10.2011 whereby the revisionist was summoned. This Court does not see any justifiable ground to review the order dated 24.2.2012. The review application has no substance and is accordingly rejected. ——————