SUBHASGOUDA Vs. LAKSKML BAI ALIAS LAKSHMAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge has made a reference in this matter to a Division Bench to be heard and decided by it under Section 9 of the Kamalaka High Court Act of 1961 (Karnataka Act 5 of 1962). According to the learned Judge, a controversy has arisen as to the power of the Judge to alter or modify the Judgment delivered by him but not signed in view of some of the decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court.

(2.) The matter for consideration arises in the following manner: The petitioner schallenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Crl. Revision Petition No. 116/1988 dismissing the revision petition filed by the present petitioners against the order of the C.J.M., Raichur in C.C. No. 256/1988 directing issue of process against them for the offences under Sections 324,323,506,147,148 and 498-A, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the petition, it is contended that the process ought not to have been issued as there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') inasmuch as a list of witnesses was not given with the complaint. Sub-section (2) of Section 204 of the Code says that no summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. On the date of hearing as Ihe order dictated by the learned Judge indicates, Sri Kashinathrao Patil for Sri Ashok Pali! appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ka nth a raj, Government Pleader were heard on the short point in- volved and the teamed Judge dictated the order in open Court on 29-1-1992. He found no merit in the petition and revision petition deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same was dismissed.

(3.) On 30-1-1992, i,e., the very next day of dictation of this order in open Court, learned counsel for the petitioners applied to the Court under LA. No. IV to recall the order made on 29-1-1992 and to hear him in the interest of justice and equity. Inter alia he stated that when the matter was called on the morning of 29th a representation was made on his behalf seeking passing over, however, the Court was pleased to dictate the order dismissing the petition on merits taking the counsel who represented for a pass over as heard. The petitioners' counsel has also stated that he mentioned to the Court soon after the order was dictated in the forenoon itself that he had a substantial point to urge in the case and the Court instructed to Stenographer not to type the order dictated and directed the matter to be called in the afternoon. In the post-lunch session the Court directed him to file an application to recall the order made on 29-1-1992. This is how this application with this prayer came to be made before the Court.