SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Crl R.C No 282 of 1976 my learned brother Punnayya, J., by his order dated 11 th May, 1976 did not admit the revision and that order was signed by the learned Judge on 11 th 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 order dated II th May; 1976 is without jurisdiction. 1 am of the opinion that the contention advanced by Mr. Obulapathi Chowdry has some 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.] JUDGMENT [The Judgement of the Bench was delivered by Madhusudan Rao, J.]

(2.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1975 on the file of the Sessions Court, Elutu, preferred a revision against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru in the Criminal Appeal. The revision petition was dismissed by a learned sirgle Judge of this Court at the admission stage Jon 11th May, 1976 after hearing the petitioner's learned Counsel, Sri M.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 learned brother Muktadar, J. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor before Muktadar, J., that the order dated 8th June, 1976 reviewing the dismissal order dated llth May, 1976 it without jurisication 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 taken the question is of considerable importance, he referred the matter to a Bench and that is how this revision has come up before us. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether after pronouncing an order of dismissal in a criminal revision petition tne High Court can review its own order of dismissal and enteratin a furtther revision. Answer to the question is directly fould in section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new), which reads: 'Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for fire time being rn force.no Court, when it has signed its judgment, or final order disposing a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The new section 362 corresponds to the old section 369 with slight changes. The old section 369 reads as follows: 'Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of a High Court by the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error' The words 'or in the case of a High Court by the Letters Patent or Instrument constituting such High Court' in section 369 of the old Code have been omitted in the new section. The omission indicates that alteration or review by a High Court would be permissible as in the case of other Courts where provision therefor is made in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force. The words 'or final order' have been introduced in the new section to make it clear that the section it applicable not only to judgments but also to final orders. Even without these words in the corresponding old section, the principal of the section was applied by the Courts to final orders also. Another addition in the new section is of the words 'or arithmetical'. These words are added in the sew section to clarify that errors in the judgment or final order arising by erroneous arithmetical calculations may also be subsequently corrected by the Court passing the judgment or order.

(3.) It is an universal principle of law that when a matter hat been finally disposed of by a Court, Such court is functus officio in respect of the matter the absence of a direct statutory provision, the Court which became functus officio cannot entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless and until in the previous order of final disposal has been set aside. It is this cardinal principle of universal application that has been incorporated in section 396 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 final 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 561-A in the old Code. In G. H. Bhatia v. Bholumal (I), 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 vs Devi Reddi (2), a Full Bench of this Court held that 'there it no tueh inherent power in the High Court under section 561-A to alter or review its own judgment once it has been pronounced 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 Ranga Swami vs. Narayanan (3) it was pointed out that 'Section 561-A Crl P C does not in any way enlarge 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 Santha Singh vs State of U.P. (4) 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. In the instant case, the petitioner's revision application against the order of the learned sessions Judge was dismissed on 11-5-76 after hearing the petitioner's learned Counsel Sri Dwaraknath. We have perused the order and find that it if a regular order passed on merits. It cannot be said that the order dt 11-5-76 is without Jurisdiction or that it was passed with out affording an opportunity to the petitioner.