SARDAR G SINGH Vs. HARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in CC 220/86 in the court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The prayer in the petition is vague and precision is not its virtue. The veiled prayer is either to review the order of this court in Crl. MC 178/87, or to quash the complaint in CC 220/86, which was earlier declined.

(2.) Crl. MC 178/87 was to quash the complaint in CC 220/86. A learned Judge of this court (S. Padmanabhan, J.) by order dated 30-3-87 dismissed the same. The learned Judge found on merits that the allegations in the complaint, if taken as correct, would constitute an offence. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel was heard, because despite two adjournments nobody appeared.

(3.) Petitioner would say that the order was passed 'without affording a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard'. I am not inclined to agree. The order of the learned Judge reveals that the case was adjourned on 26-3-87 in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, to give another opportunity. On 30-3-87 also, neither the counsel nor the petitioner appeared. It was in this circumstance that the learned Judge proceeded to decide the case. Hence the contention must fail. That apart, a petition for review in a criminal proceeding will not lie. In Bhanu v. Vilasini ( 1980 KLT 13 ), a learned Single Judge of this court after surveying the law on the subject held that an application for review cannot be entertained under S.482 of the Code. A similar view was expressed in Kannan v. Food Inspector (AIR 1965 Kerala 37). In Sankantha Singh and others v. State of UP ( AIR 1962 SC 1208 ), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question. The court held that an appeal once disposed of on merits, cannot be reopened or restored to file. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh ( AIR 1975 SC 1002 ), this view was re-affirmed. In State of Orissa v. Ramachandra Agarwal ( AIR 1979 SC 87 ), once again, the Supreme Court held that inherent powers cannot be invoked to review, more so, when the Code prohibited review. S.362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in clear terms states: