C JACOB KORAH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Recall' or 'not to recall', 're -hear' or 'not to rehear', is the dilemma typically caused due to Sankatha Singh's decision : AIR1962SC1208 ; and Swarth Mahto's decision : 1972CriLJ879 . The highlight of the dilemma is that both the decisions are of the Apex Court and occupy the same field of jurisdictional issue of re -hearing and re -calling the decision of a criminal case by the High Court. 'Inherent powers' under Section 482, Cr.PC (New) and 561A, Cr.PC (Old) 'bar' created by Sections 369 and 424, Cr.PC (Old) and Sections 362 and 387, Cr.PC (New) are interlocked in this juristic debate before this Court, which has taken days together. This typical decision vreuld reflect how a Judge faces judicial dilemma when the decisions are interpreted by the Bar to be conflicting even though they are of the Apex Court, precisely covering and occupying the same field. With this billion dollar question, I would now enter the traditional field of narration of the facts and the contentions before answering the above question which would be done in final phase of the judgment.

(2.) THIS is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petitition under Section 482, Cr.PC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and recalling the judgment dated the 29th October, 1985 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1976 by CBI (SPE) Jaipur, Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1977 by the State of Rajasthan for enhancement of sentence of the petitioner and Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1976 by the petitioner whereby this Court passed a common judgment deciding all the three Criminal Appeals.

(3.) AT the time, all the three appeals were taken by this Court, no one appeared for the petitioner, C. Jacob. All the three appeals were heard at length with the assistance of the Special Public Prosecutor, Shri S.P. Tyagi, Advocate.