ROSHANLAL PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had the opportunity of going through my Lord's judgment and I agree with the same. But I would like to add a few words.

(2.) SECTION 561a of the Criminal procedure Code cannot be invoked for the purpose of review or rehearing of an appeal. It has been expressly stated in other sections that there should be finality of every order and judgment passed by the court. True, only for making corrections of clerical errors or for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of court, court can invoke this extras-ordinary jurisdiction but certainly not for merely for the purpose of reviewing its own judgment for the omissions or leaches of the learned advocate who argued the appeal.

(3.) IN this particular matter, Mr. Deb wanted to bring in certain other points which, according to him, were not urged by the learned advocate for the appellant who argued this appeal before us. I would like to point out that true, we mainly considered and discussed in our judgment the arguments of the learned advocate, Mr. Nalin Chandra Banerjee, who appeared for the appellant but in coming to our decision we also considered all possible aspects of the case specially the facts which must be proved as necessary in gradients of the offence charged and to come to the finding we considered the entire evidence, the records and documents of the case and not merely depended on the arguments of the learned advocates.