HAR BILAS Vs. RAM NIWAS BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Misc. Application No.3082 of 1982 under Section 482, Criminal P. C., was dismissed on 7 -11 -1983 Criminal Misc. Application No. 8686 of 1983 under Section 482. Criminal P. C., was dismissed on 19 -10 -1983 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 6308 of 1982 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was dismissed summarily before admission on 19 -10 -1983. In all the three cases applications have been preferred for recall of the order of dismissal.

(2.) SRI Tejpal Singh appearing in two cases argued the applications for recall, and Sri Devendra Swarup appearing in case No. 8686 adopting that argument made one more submission. All the aforesaid three cases were dismissed after revising the list as is the practice in this Court. Parties counsel had notice because they all were shown in the cause list of the respective dates with the names of counsel concerned. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8686 of 1983 was for quashing the Criminal proceedings in a police chalan case under certain sections. The Court observed that a prima facie case is disclosed hence the application is rejected. That case was at admission stage and was a part heard case. Criminal Misc. Application No. 3082 of 1982 was listed for hearing. It was for directing respondent No. 1 to deposit the truck No. U. P. H. 7654 in the custody of CJM Agra. By order dated 3 -8 -1982 in revision (Annexure F) the High Court held that instead of permitting the vehicle lying idle it should be allowed to be operated; may be by the applicant in that case and directed that the vehicle be released in favour of the applicant in that case, namely, Ram Niwas Bansal - Opposite Party. The applicant maintained that after the judgment of the Court the opposite party applied for release of truck No. USA 2135 and not UPH 7654. It is clear that only one vehicle was in dispute and the direction of the High Court in revision was for release of that vehicle to the applicant of that case. This Court disposing of the matter on merits in absence of the applicant's counsel held that the record has been perused and the petition is dismissed as it has no force. In the third case, Criminal Misc. Application No. 6308 of 1982, which was also at the stage of admission, the prayer was that the charge -sheet, summoning order and the framing of the charge in the Police case all be quashed and this Court observed that 'perused the materials on record including that of the lower Court and the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C., has no force and it is rejected summarily. I have referred to all this to indicate that none of these three applications were dismissed in default for want of any steps, etc., and they were all dismissed on merits, otherwise also when the application purported to be under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Unless the steps were not completed or such things the Court had to consider the applications even in absence of the parties as to pass orders for admission or summary rejection in cases of admission, and to pass orders allowing or rejecting the application in case of hearing case.

(3.) IT is urged that this section does not apply to judgment and orders of the High Court. For that the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh (1981 Cri LJ 1044) (supra) which I have quoted is a complete answer. The Supreme Court has in that case observed that the alteration of the judgment by the High Court was clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 362, Cr. P. C. This in itself implies that in view of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid latest pronouncement Section 362 of the present Cr. P. C. applies to all Courts including High Court. The language of the section using the expression 'the Court' also indicates that. It was argued that the observations were made in the context that the High Court stated that there was a clerical mistake in the operative part of the judgment while in view of the Supreme Court this observation was incorrect. The crux of the matter is not that but the crux is whether Section 362 of the new Cr. P. C. applies to High Court's orders and judgment also or not and so far as that aspect is concerned the aforesaid pronouncement is expressly an authority that this provision is attracted in case of orders and the judgments of the High Court as well as otherwise why should the Supreme Court expressly observe that the High Courts orders altering the judgment contravenes the provision of Section 362, Cr. P. C.