B R V SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Crl. R.C. No. 282 of 1976 my learned brother Punnayya, J., by his order dated 11th May, 1976 did not admit the revision and that order was signed by the learned Judge on 11th May, 1976. However the learned Judge by his order dated 8th June, 1976 has revised his own order and admitted the revision which he had dismissed on 11th May,, 1976.Mr. Obulapathi Chowdary contends that in view of the provisions of section. 369 of the old Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to section 362 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, once a judgement or order is signed or pronounced by a criminal Court, it cannot revise or review the same and therefore the order of the learned Judge dated 8th June, 1976 reviewing his ord.er dated 11th May, 1976 is without jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that the contention advanced by Mr. Obulapathi Chowdary hassome force. But, having regard to the importance of the question, it would be proper if the matter is disposed of by a Bench of this Court. The office will place the papers before My Lord the Chief Justice for posting the case before the Bench. In pursuance of the said order this case came on for hearing before the Bench. M. Dwarak Nath, for Petitioner. The Public Prosecutor on behalf of State. The Judgment of the Bench was delivered! by Madhusudan Rao, J.-The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1975 on the file of the Sessions Court, Eluru, preferred a revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru in the Criminal Appeal. The revision petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court at the admiision stage on 11th May, 1976 after hearing the petitioner's learned Counsel, SriM. Dwarak Nath. Subsequently, Sri Dwarak Nath mentioned before the learned Judge that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and that the illegality was not brought to the notice of the Court when the revision petition was argued on 11th May, 1976. The learned Judge thereupon cancelled the order dated 11th May, 1976 dismissing the revision petition, and directed by his order dated 8th June, 1976 that the revision case be admitted on the Court's file and that the case should be posted for final hearing after due notice to the Public Prosecutor The revision case came up for hearing before our earned brother Muktadar, J. It was extended by the learned Public Prosecutor before Muktadar, J., that the order dated 8th June, 1976 reviewing the dismissal order dated 11th May, 1976 is without jurisdiction and that the revision petition is, therefore, not maintainable. Muktadar, J., opined that the contention of the Public Prosecutor had some force. Being of the view" that the question is of considerable importance, he referred the matter to a Bench and that is how this revision has come up before us.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether after pronouncing an order of dismissal in a criminal revision petition, the High Court can review its own order of dismissal and entertain a further revision. Answer to the question is directly found in secion 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (new), which reads :

(3.) It is an universal principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a Court, such Court is functus officio in respect of that matter. In the absence of a direct statutory provision, the Court which became functus officio cannot entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief un less and until, the previous order of firal disposal has been set aside. It is this cardinal principle of universal application that has been incorporated in section 369 of the old Code and section 362 of the new Code. If an application for a certain prayer based on certain facts has been disposed of by the Court, entertaining a fresh application with the same prayer on the same facts is not permissible as such course involves the cancellation or alteration or review of the previous order, unless there is a specific provision in the Code or in any other law permitting the cancellation, alteration or review of the earlier order. Admittedly, there is no provision in any other law permitting the High Court to alter or review a firal order passed by it in a criminal revision case. The only provision on which Sri Dwarak Nath, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner places reliance is section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section 482 is a verbatim reproduction of section 56l,-A in the old Code. In G.H. Bhatia v. Bholumal, it was held by this Court that "if a criminal revision petition is dismissed on the merits by the High Court after fully hearing the parties, the principle of equity and justice will demand that no other petition on the same matter should be entertained". In Public Prosecutor v. Devi Reddi, a Full Bench of thisCourt held that " there is no such inherent power in the High Court under section 561-A to alter or review its own judgment once it has been pronouccced except in cases where it was passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance, i.e., without affording an opportunity to the accused to appear. In Rangaswimi v. Narayanan, it was pointedout that "section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, does not in any way entarge the powers conferred under the Code especially when it is provided in the Code that no Court when it has signed the judgment, shall alter or review the same". In Sankatha Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh, the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that inherent powers cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits the Court from doing. When section 362 expressly prohibits the Court from altering or reviewing its final order after the same is signed, it would not be open to the High Court to review or alter the order by admitting a fresh revision application.