YESU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant No. 1 Yesu and applicant No. 2 Beeru were convicted under Section 392 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years each and were required to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 each or in default they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each- This judgment dated 6-11-2000 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 244 and 245/2000 was challenged by the applicants by filing the Criminal Revision was filed on 2-1-2001. It was listed for admission and for grant of bail on 8-1-2001. The revision was admitted and the applicants were granted bail. It appears, that applicant No. 1 Yesu, had filed a jail appeal against the impugned judgment dated 6-11-2000 passed in Criminal (Jail) Appeal Nos. 244 and 245/2000. This Jail Appeal was received in the office of this Court on 8-1-2001. Since the judgment appealed against was not appealable, the jail appeal did not lie. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing a Criminal Revision from jail yet the office treated the jail appeal as a criminal revision. This criminal revision was listed on 9-2-2001 for admission as Criminal Revision No. 123/2001. This Court thereupon called for the record from the Court below as per order-sheet dated 9-2-2001. The record was received and the case was fixed for admission on 11-4-2001. This Court in absence of the applicant perused the memo of criminal revision and went through the record of the case. Thereafter hearing the learned counsel for the State this Court passed an order of dismissal on merits. However, it is obvious that the procedure adopted by this Court was defective. Firstly, it was never pointed out to this Court by the counsel for State that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain a criminal revision from jail. Secondly, the Court was not reminded that it would be proper to hear the applicant before passing an adverse order against him in Criminal Revision No. 123/2001. Thirdly, the Office did not connect Criminal Revision No. 123/2001 with this Criminal Revision No. 21/2001 which was admitted by this Court on 8-1-2001. It is apparent that the revision of the applicant No. 1 Yesu was already admitted. It is obvious that if the Court was aware of the order passed in this revision then no order of dismissal could be passed in Criminal Revision No. 123/2001.

(2.) THIS Criminal Revision No. 21/2001 is still pending and therefore this Court is required to decide the effect of dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 123/2001. For the purpose a office Note dated 27-6-200) has been prepared.

(3.) ONE view this Court can take is that so far as the applicant No. 1 Yesu is concerned, there could be no review of the order dated 11-4-2001 in criminal revision as review is barred under Section 362 of the Cr. PC and consequently dismiss this criminal revision partially filed by the applicant No. 1 Yesu alone. The other view could be that once Criminal Revision No. 21/2001 was admitted, and it is alive and existing, and so this Court had no power to pass an order in Criminal Revision No. 123/2001 separately, especially, when there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for entertaining a revision from jail. Under these circumstances, the Court can declare that every part of the order dated 11-4-2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 123/2001 is without jurisdiction and a nullity, and as such it is of no legal consequence. However, the question is whether this Court can declare its own order as nullity under its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.