RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main), has been preferred by the Petitioner under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter shortly the Code) for re -calling the judgment passed by me on 2nd May, 1989. It arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The Petitioner is a Driver with the Agriculture Department. On 17 -8 -1985, while driving Bus HIL -5266 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with Jeep HIM -2765 and Jeep No. HIS -4806. This accident took place near the Victory Tunnel on Cart Road, Shimla and caused injuries to Padam Singh, Drivei of one of the jeeps and Shri Rup Singh Dogra Chief Engineer, H.P. State Electricity Board, Shimla. Police came to the spot on receiving the report of this accident and the accused was taken to the Hospital for examination. It was found that he had taken Alcohol . After investigation the accused was challaned for offences like 379/337 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 117 and 3/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The trial ended in the acquittal of the accused and this decision of the trial Judge was challenged by the State through Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1986. The appeal was admitted on 29 -4 -1986 and the Petitioner was summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs 2000/ -. He did not engage any counsel and at a subsequent stage, actual date notice was issued for his appearance in the Court but it was received un -delivered. However, the Registry found it to be a complete service, for reasons to be recorded hereafter, and the appeal was heard and by judgment of 2nd May, 1989, the State appeal was allowed and the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to fine for all the offences, in question. The Petitioner submits that he came to know of this decision on 18th June, 1989 when he was called to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (2) Shimla. Thereafter he moved this petition in this Court. His case is that the Court notice of actual hearing was not served on him as required under the High Court Rules and Orders nor he came to know about the date fixed for hearing of the appeal. He was posted at Shimla but the service of summon was attempted at his Home address. Therefore, he has been condemned un -heard and the principles of natural justice stand violated. According to him, it is a fit case where the judgment should ere -viewed in the interest of justice.

(3.) M.S. Gularia, learned Assistant Advocate General raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that this kind of petition is not maintainable since the object and scope of this petition amounts to review of decision rendered on merits by this Court. This kind of power of review is not available to this Court and inherent powers envisaged under Sec. 482 of the Code are not meant to be exercised where there is a specific statutory bar in the Code. Reference was made to Sec. 362 of the Code which is reproduced as under: