SURRAINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a review petition filed by the Surrinder Kumar against the order dated 9th of April 1969 passed by this court dismissing the re -vision petition of the petitioner which he had brought against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Mobile Magistrate, Srinagar. The accused was challenged for having contravened the provisions of Sections 32/112 and 42/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 350.00 and Rs 50.00 respectively.

(2.) IT is important to mention here that the revision petition was disposed off on merits after hearing the Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State when nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner now seeks by means of this review petition to reopen the whole case and get it decided afresh.

(3.) AN objection has been raised on behalf of the State that no review would lie in the matter. Reliance is placed on Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that save as otherwise provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force or in the case of High Court, by the Constitution of that Court, no court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same. It is submitted that this section operates as a complete bar for all courts including High Court to review any order passed in appeal or in revision. To support the contention that no review would lie in the instant case reliance is placed on AIR 1962 SC 1208 and AIR 1953 All. 303. As against this the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sec. 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be construed to impose any bar to the making of a review petition against an order passed in revision by this court and that this court has got ample powers to review a proceeding in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction by virtue of Section561 -A Cr P. C. That section gives wide powers to the High Court to pass any order in order to remove an injustice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In support of the propose on that a review petition could lie, the learned counsel has relied on AIR 1955 SC 633 (para 6), AIR 1957 Patna 33 and AIR 1963 Mysore 191 and 326.