STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GEOFFREY MANNERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE delivered the above oral judgment Reported in A. I. R. (38) 1951 Bom. 45 : 63 Bom. L. R. 112 in open Ct. on Wednesday September 13, and a writ in terms of the order made by us was issued on the same day. The Ct. was closed on 15th, 16th and 17th. On Monday the 18th morning, before we received the transcript of the oral judgment, both Mr. Amin, who had appeared for the accused, and the Advocate General saw me in the Chambers. Mr. Amin stated that if we had not signed the judgment, he would like the matter to be mentioned again in Ct. so far as the liability of the Directors, viz. , accused 2 and 5, was concerned. I mentioned to them my doubts as to whether it was open to us to review a judgment which was orally delivered by us in open Ct. Both Mr, Amin and the Advocate General promised to look into the point. On Monday evening I received the transcript of the oral judgment. But in view of the fact that the matter had been mentioned to me earlier in the day, we postponed the question of settling the judgment and putting our initials to the transcript. Mr. Amin saw me in the Chambers on Wednesday the 20th, and I suggested to him that he and the Advocate General should mention the matter to us in open Ct. on next day. It was accordingly mentioned on the 21st morning, and we have now had the matter argued before us.

(2.) THREE points arise for our consideration. The first is whether it is open to us to review or alter a judgment which we delivered in open Ct. on September 13. Secondly, if it was open to us to review the judgment, what should be the limits of such a review. And lastly, if we had the power to review, and the matter falls within the limits within which such a review could be made, then what is the effect of such review on the decision at which we had already arrived.

(3.) SO far as the first point is concerned, Mr. Amin relied primarily on the provisions of Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure. That section is in the following terms :