H R SHETTY Vs. TITAS FARNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners are challenging the order dated 4-4-2002 passed by the learned I Addl. C. J. M. (Sr. Dn.) Mangalore, in P. C. No. 21/1999 practically recalling its earlier order dated 7-12-2001. The respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 IPC. On receipt of the complaint, the same was referred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. on investigation, the police submitted their 'b' report. When the 'b' report was placed before the learned Magistrate, on 7-12-2001 holding that no objections or protest petition is filed by the complainant against the acceptance of 'b' report, accepted the final report and stated that 'file shall stand closed. " Thereafter, on coming to know of this order, the complainant moved the matter inter alia contending that the observation of the trial Court that he had not filed any protest petition which was not considered and as such prayed that it is a fit case to re-open. After hearing both the sides, by the impugned order the learned Magistrate noted that there is a mistake on the part of the Court in accepting the 'b' report by oversight without considering the objections or the protest petition filed by the complainant and as such ordered for placing the complaint and 'b' report for further consideration. As against this act, the present petition is filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that under S. 362, Cr. P. C. No Court can alter or review its own judgment once it is signed, unless there is any correction of clerical or arithmetic error to be carried out. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Kencha v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR (1985) 3 Kant 2819 which has laid down that;