STATE AND Vs. RAJASHEKAR RAO SINDYA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to these two I. As are that in Cr. P. 2344/96 the petitioner filed a petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. to set aside the order dt. 27-7-96 passed by the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 22756/96 taking cognizance of the case and directing issue of process to the petitioners. The said case was posted for hearing. On that day the learned advocate was absent and therefore, this Court passed an order on merits on the main contention holding that the contention raised in the petition is that the list of witnesses was not furnished to the petitioner therein, that may be an error which would not go to the root of the case. Therefore, the complainant was directed to furnish the list of witnesses and also list of documents, if any, to the petitioner on the next date of hearing before the trial Court and the petition was dismissed.

(2.) SIMILARLY Cr. P. 555/96 was filed by Rajashekar Sindya under S. 482, Cr. P. C. to set aside the order dt. 28-12-95 and to quash the further proceedings in the said case (PC 231/95) on the file of the 21st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, taking cognizance of the case and directing to issue process to the petitioner therein. The said case also stood posted for hearing. On that day, the petitioner counsel appeared and submitted his arguments. However, the Central Govt. Standing Counsel remained absent despite he being sent words. Therefore, this Court passed an order holding that the proceedings against the petitioner therein would operate double jeopardy as he was already acquitted by the Court on an earlier occasion for the same complaint. On that ground, the proceedings initiated against him for the second time were quashed relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to therein. Therefore these I. As. came to be filed by the respective parties. The office has raised an objection as to whether the Interlocutory Applications are maintainable under S. 482, Cr. P. C. as there is a prohibition contained under S. 362, Cr. P. C. The matter was posted for hearing before the Court. The Court directed notice to the concerned respondents herein in these I. As. and heard the respondents. However, the respondents have not filed any written objections but they orally contended that these I. As. are not maintainable as both the orders came to be passed on merits and therefore, this Court has become functus officio. Under those circumstances, these orders cannot be recalled or reviewed by this Court.

(3.) REPELLING this argument, the learned advocates appearing for the applicants vehemently argued that it is not the case of reviewing or altering the Judgment or order. On the other hand, the applicants are seeking the recalling of the order. Therefore, the same is maintainable.