UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None is found on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) This application has been filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, NF Railway and the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway, Maligaon for reviewing the order dated 31-7-95 passed by this Court in Crl. Original Application No. 620/ 95, by which the prayer of Shri Babul Dey for anticipatory bail was turned down holding that offences contemplated under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 are bailable and hence no such application under Section 438 Cr PC for anticipatory bail is maintainable in respect of the offences under the said Act.2A. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Railway authorities are finding it very difficult to deal with variousoffenders arrested in connection with various offences under the provisions of the Act. According to him, the accused arrested in connection with offences under the Act makes a prayer for bail soon after his arrest relying upon the aforesaid order dated 31-7-95 passed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, Railway authorities are left with no alternative, but to mechanically allow all such prayers for bail, the moment an accused is arrested. Mr. Sharma, further submits that neither the Indian Railways, nor the Union of India or the NF Railway was party to the aforesaid Crl. Original Application No. 620/95. Therefore, the present review applicants were not heard when the aforesaid order dated 31-7-95 was passed. In these circumstances, it has become extremely difficult for the Railway authorities to deal with various offenders arrested under the provisions of the said Act. Accordingly, this application has been filed on behalf of the review applicants for review or alteration of the order dated 31-7-95.

(3.) At the very out set, I would like to observe here that in view of what is provided under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. I am, therefore, aware of the fact that this Court while exercising power under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is totally incompetent to alter or review any judgment or order by which a case was finally disposed of.