Skip to content


S. Rangaswami and anr. Vs. R. Narayanan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Petn. No. of 1965 in (S.R. No. 7916 of 1965 in Cr. R.C. No. 476 of 1964)
Judge
Reported inAIR1966Mad163; 1966CriLJ548; (1965)2MLJ232
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 369, 424, 439 and 561-A
AppellantS. Rangaswami and anr.
RespondentR. Narayanan
Cases ReferredAnthony Das v. State
Excerpt:
- - nazir ahmad ,and held that it is now well settled that the section confers no new powers on the high court and that it merely safeguards all the existing inherent powers possessed by the court necessary to secure the ends of justice......submitted that the high court has power to review and recall or alter its earlier decision in a criminal revision under s. 561-a cri.p.c. in a recent decision of the supreme court in sankatha singh v. state of uttar pradesh, : air1962sc1208 it was held that the appellate court has no power to review or restore an appeal which has been disposed of. a sessions judge cannot set aside the first order passed in appeal dismissing the appeal when neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared and cannot order rehearing of the appeal. construing ss. 369 and 424 cri.p.c., the supreme court observed that the appellate court could not pass an order of rehearing of the appeal in exercise of the inherent powers when s. 369 read with s. 424 of the code specifically prohibit the altering or.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) This petition is filed under S. 561-A, Cri.P.C. for reviewing the judgment of this court passed in Cri.R.C. 476 of 1964. This court in revision confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners for the offences of criminal trespass. Under S. 369, Cri.P.C. no criminal court when it has signed the judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. It is submitted that this section is not applicable to the High Court especially when it is disposing of appeals or revisions. It has been repeatedly held by this court from In re Arumugha Padayachi, 1926 Mad WN 147: AIR 1926 Mad 420 that a criminal court has no power to review its judgment when once it has been signed. The learned counsel on the authority of the Full Bench decision in Raj Narain v. State, : AIR1959All315 submitted that the High Court has power to review and recall or alter its earlier decision in a criminal revision under S. 561-A Cri.P.C. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : AIR1962SC1208 it was held that the appellate court has no power to review or restore an appeal which has been disposed of. A Sessions Judge cannot set aside the first order passed in appeal dismissing the appeal when neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared and cannot order rehearing of the appeal. Construing Ss. 369 and 424 Cri.P.C., the Supreme Court observed that the appellate court could not pass an order of rehearing of the appeal in exercise of the inherent powers when S. 369 read with S. 424 of the Code specifically prohibit the altering or reviewing of its order by a court. It was further observed that the inherent powers cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits the court from doing.

The learned Counsel submitted that this decision may not be applicable to the exercise of the powers of the High Court as a court of revision under S. 561-A Cri.P.C. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 561-A Cri.P.C. does not in any way enlarge the powers conferred under the Code especially when it is provided in the Code that no court when it has signed the judgment, shall alter or review the same. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed Naim, : [1964]2SCR363 cited with approval the Privy Council decisions in Jairam Das v. Emperor and Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad , and held that it is now well settled that the section confers no new powers on the High Court and that it merely safeguards all the existing inherent powers possessed by the court necessary to secure the ends of justice. The same view is stated by the Supreme Court in Dr. Raghubir Saran V. State of Bihar, : 1964CriLJ1 . It is idle to contend that S. 369 Cri.P.C. is not applicable to criminal revisions for the court exercising its powers of revision under S. 439 Cri.P.C. exercises only some of the powers conferred on a court of appeal. The powers of revision cannot be stated to be larger than that of a court of appeal. In a recent decision of this court in Anthony Das v. State, : (1963)IMLJ393 Sadasivam J. also took the view that the High Court has no inherent power to alter or review its own judgment. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. This petition is dismissed.

(2) Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //