MAHENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the review of an order made by this Court on the 27th of February, 1958. The provision under which the application has been made has been mentioned at the top of the application as Section 561a, Cr. P. C.

(2.) IT appears that the applicants were convicted by a Magistrate First Class, Bareilly under section 325,. P. C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year's Rule 1, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. An appeal was preferred to the Sessions judge but failed. An application in revision was then filed on their behalf in this Court and was rejected by the order now sought to be reviewed. It was held that there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court which concluded the case against the applicants and that the sentence also did not appear to be excessive. At the time when the revision application was considered the counsel for the applicants was heard at some length and the order passed shows that the application was dismissed as it was found to be without merits. The applicants have now applied for a review of that order, on the ground that at the time when the application for revision was argued, the learned counsel who argued it inadvertently omitted to urge certain points of law which arose in the case and which deserved the consideration of the court.

(3.) THE ordinary rule which has been enacted in Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that no court can alter or review its judgment after having signed it except to correct a clerical error. The rule applies to High Courts also, but in their case it is provided that review will be permissible if it is authorized by the Letters Patent or the other instrument constituting the High court. It is not suggested on behalf of the applicants that the Letters Patent or the other instrument constituting the Allahabad High Court contain anything authorising this Court to review its judgments. It may, however, be urged that the order sought to be reviewed cannot be considered to be a judgment as it does not comply with the requirements of Section 367 of the Code. The answer to that contention will, however, be found in the Full Bench decision of Nand Lal Chuni lal Bodiwala v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Bom 276. There it was held in clear terms: