JOSE Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for consideration in this criminal miscellaneous petition is whether a criminal appeal disposed of by this Court could be reopened and reheard invoking the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Very old criminal appeals and revision petitions are pending disposal in this Court. Parties and counsels have lost interest in most of them. Even after continuous posting in the hearing list nobody turns up even to ask for an adjournments. Sending messengers to get the counsel usually turns out to be futile attempts for consecutive days. Those cases cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Disposal for default is not permitted. In such cases the only course open to the Court is to dispose of them on the merits after perusing evidence, if possible, by hearing the Public Prosecutor or the available counsel or party. That was the fate of Crl. A. 157 of 1982. Since there was no other go, the Public Prosecutor was heard and evidence perused. The appeal was disposed of on the merits on 7-8-1985. It was an appeal by the State against acquittal. The appeal was allowed and the respondents were convicted and sentenced. Now counsel for the respondent in his affidavit says that he was waiting in some other Court thinking that his case before this Court may not be taken up at that time. He may be correct. But that is not the question. The question is whether law permits such reopening and rehearing. The prayer could be allowed only if it is either permitted or not prohibited by law.

(3.) Even though the petition is filed under S.482 of the Code, what is involved is only review of the judgment. The Code of Civil Procedure contain specific provisions for setting aside dismissals for default, reopening ex parte decrees and reviewing judgments or orders. Corresponding provisions are not there in the Code of Criminal Procedure for obvious reasons. In fact S.362 of the Code contains an express prohibition that save as otherwise provided, 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.