MEHAR CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court passed on 20- 8-1951 whereby, although seven other persons were discharged on their tendering unconditional apologies, the present petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. The petitioner was treated differently from the others because he did not put in appearance in this Court on the date of hearing. He had sent a telegram asking for adjournment on the ground of sickness, but it was disregarded because no communication relating to a judicial matter can be acted upon unless made formally. An application for adjournment supported by a medical certificate was received from the petitioner subsequently, but that was too late because received after the judgment.

(2.) In the present petition for review of the said judgment, although the petitioner seeks in the first instance to explain that he had no complicity in the matter interpreted as amounting to a contempt of the Court, he tenders an unconditional apology at the end of the petition. Such an apology not being unqualified, might not have been accepted as satisfactory, but the learned counsel for the petitioner did not seek at all to justify the conduct of the petitioner but contented himself with merely offering an unconditional apology on behalf of his client for the conduct in respect of which proceedings were taken against him.

(3.) Two objections were, however, taken by the Government Advocate. The first was that this Court has no power to review the judgment delivered by it on 20-8-1951. And in support of this contention he cited the following rulings: -- 'Kunhahamad Haji v. Emperor, AIR 1923 Mad 426; Arumuga Padayachi In re, AIR, 1926 Mad 420; -- 'Banwari Lal v. Emperor', AIR 1935 All 468, and -- 'Laxmanrao Parashram v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Nag 74. These cases lay down that the High Court has no inherent power under Section 581A, Cr. P. C., to review its judgment. In none of these cases, however, was review sought of a judgment delivered under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. This Act lays down a special procedure, as I shall presently show, and therefore the above rulings have no application in the present case.