EKAMBARA MUDALI Vs. ALAMELAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15, in default two weeks rigorous imprisonment, under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, in the following circumstances: The case was filed before the First Class Bench, Vellore, on 19th February, 1929, and posted to 26 February. On 26 February, according to the Diary Extract, it was adjourned to 1 March. On 1 March, the complainant was absent, and the accused, the present petitioner, was acquitted under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. On the 5 March the complainant's vakil represented that the posting to the 1 was a mistake for the 5th. Thereupon an entry was made in the diary for the 5 March : Alamelu Ammal prefers a complaint against Ekambara Mudali Her sworn statement is recorded. The case is taken on file under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and posted to 19 March, 1929

(2.) This was merely a revival of the old complaint dismissed on 1 March, 1929. There was, as a matter of fact, no fresh stamped complaint and no sworn statement on 5 March. There was a complaint on plain paper, dated 5 March, and a sworn statement, dated 26 March.

(3.) The petitioner complains that having once been acquitted he cannot be retired for the same offence. The President thinks that his Court can act as a Court of Revision and decide which of its decisions may or may not be quashed. In any circumstances there is no legal authority for making false records in the Court's diary. If the President thought he could treat the order of acquittal as a nullity, he should have done so, proceeding with the case of 19 February on 5 March as though nothing had happened on 1 March. But such procedure is quite contrary to the Code, which has never contemplated a Court sitting in revision upon its own completed and pronounced judgments. The President, if he thought there had been a miscarriage of justice, should have referred the matter to the District Magistrate, who, if so advised, could have acted under Section 438.