NARANJAN KOUR Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to the petition are : that a Police report under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C, was produced by the Police Division, Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar, on 28-1-1984 titled State v. Ghulam Mustaffa Qureshi and others, in the court of City Magistrate, Srinagar. The learned City Magistrate took cognizance and drew up a preliminary order under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C, and also passed an order in terms of Sec. 145(4) Cr.P.C. directing the attachment of the property in dispute, the parties were directed to produce their written objections in support of their respective claims and such documents and affidavits on which they rely. It transpires from a perusal of the interim order dt. 7-4-1984, that evidence of the parties was closed and the case was adjourned for final arguments to April 9,1984. The case, however, was not taken up on April 9, 1984, and came up on April 11,1984, when respondent No. 3 requested the court for permission to produce some additional documents. The permission was granted as per the interim order with the consent of the counsel for the parties. The case was then listed for final arguments on various dates from April 14 to April 28,1984, when counsel for respondent No. 2 made a request to the court to permit him to produce a Will in support of his case, a formal application supported by an affidavit in this behalf was subsequently made by the counsel on May 1,1984. Objections to the application were invited On May 2, 1984, counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted his objections and at the same time sought an opportunity to produce fresh affidavits on the ground that the earlier affidavits filed by respondent No.3 suffered from defects of verification. Objections were filed by the petitioner herein to the applications of respondents 2 and 3 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties the impugned order was passed on May 8, 1984, permitting respondent No. 2 to produce the Will and respondent No. 3 the fresh affidavits. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order through this composite petition under Sec. 561-A read with Sec. 435 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Mr. H. S. Oberoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dt. May 8,1984, amounted to reviewing the previous order of the court by which the evidence had been closed and the case posted for final arguments. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order as it was not competent to review its previous order. Learned counsel further complained that while granting the permission the court has neither dealt with the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner nor has it recorded any satisfaction that the production of the Will was necessary for effective disposal of the proceedings before it. In making this submission learned counsel relied upon the provisions of Sec. 369 Cr.P.C, which prohibits every court to review or alter its judgment after it has been signed except to correct a clerical error. Submitted Mr. Oberoi, that the impugned order was not aimed at correcting any clerical error in the earlier order of the court but amounted to altering and reviewing the earlier order which the court was not competent to do. Mr. R.N. Koul learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there was no bar for the court to accept any document at any stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure and further that the principle that a court exercising criminal jurisdiction cannot alter or review its judgment, cannot extend to interim orders as in the present case.

(3.) The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is : whether the bar contained in Sec. 369 Cr.P.C, extends to interim orders and interlocutory orders passed by a court while exercising criminal jurisdiction during the course of the proceedings ?