MURTI DHAR SINGH Vs. VIJENDRA SINGH JAFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. BD Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent. This revision petition has been placed before the Division Bench of this Court on being referred by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice AP Singh, since retired) by his order dated 18.7.97 for referring the matter for a final decision by a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in Haji Sabajuddin vs. Banamali Das reported in (1982) 1 GLR 722 since the learned Single Judge respectfully disagreed with the said judgment while deciding the Criminal Misc Case No.107 of 1997 (Criminal Misc Case No.4 (SH) of 1997) arising out of Criminal Revision No.459 of 1996 wherein the solitary question of law involved was as to whether the Court has the power to review "its judgment or final order disposing of a case" by exercising inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) notwithstanding the specific bar under section 3 62 of the Code to alter or review of such judgment and final order of disposal.

(2.) It would be pertinent to nan-ate the back ground of the case which has necessitated making this reference. The learned Single Judge on 27.6.97 having dismissed the Criminal Revision No.459 of 1996 for non-prosecution, passed the following order:

(3.) Aggrieved by the said dismissal order for non-prosecution, an application has been preferred by the revision petitioners seeking for modification/alteration of the said order on the ground that the petitioners were not at fault for non-appearance of their counsel engaged in the case at the time of hearing of the said revision The said engaged Guwahati based lawyer, with whom the petitioners were in constant touch, had started from Guwahati to Shillong to appear and argue the case. But due to certain development faced by the said lawyer he could not accomplish his visit for which reason the default in appearance of the said counsel was occasioned. The petitioners taking exception to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the dismissal order to the effect that the petitioners had lost interest in the case after obtaining the stay order, stated that the petitioners were virtually interested in the case and their interest should not be doubted