ANIL SHASHIKANT DUKHANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal was called out first on 26th November, 2010, but none appeared for the appellant. The learned APP was, therefore, heard on that day and matter was adjourned. On 2nd December, 2010 when the case was called out, again none appeared for the appellant. Since it was not shown that the advocate for the appellant has ceased to practice, there was no question of issuing any notice to the appellant to engage another advocate. After matter was heard on 26th November, 2010, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, made enquiries with the investigating Officer and found that the prosecutrix had committed suicide by consuming poison on 05.01.2009, out of frustration since her marriage could not settled. The Investigating Officer, seems to have also recorded the statement of the appellant on 29.11.2010, wherein the appellant stated that he was aware that he had been convicted and appeal against conviction was pending before this Court. Thus, it was not that the appellant was not aware of the need to prosecute his appeal, yet he and his learned counsel were absent on 2-12-2010. Therefore, on 2.12.2010, with the help of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I went through the record and proceeding in the light of grounds raised in the memo of appeal and also attempted to consider all the arguments that could have and requested that he may be heard. Since the judgment was already dictated, the question was whether the appeal could be reheard. The learned counsel for appellant, therefore, filed Criminal Application No.1492 of 2010, for being permitted to argue the appeal on merits. This application too is now being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to a judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh delivered in Appeal No.618 of 1997 on 1.3.2000. In that case a judgment allowing a Criminal Appeal was pronounced i.e. dictated on 22.01.2000. It was, however, not transcribed and signed. Thereafter the Court itself entertained a doubt and so decided to rehear the matter. A specific objection was raised by the appellant that a judgment in a Criminal Case once pronounced could not be reviewed for whatever reason. After considering the provision of section 362 of the Code of Criminal procedure, as also several judgments, the learned Judge (B. Sudarshan Reddy, J), held as under in para Nos 18 and 19 of the said judgment.

(3.) The learned Judge then heard the appeal again and again allowed it. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that notwithstanding provisions of section 362 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the High Court would have the power to review its own judgment delivered in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. The learned APP had a strong objection to such a course.