AMODINI DASEE Vs. DARSAN GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this Rule was heard on the 16th June last, we delivered judgment discharging the same, but on the same day, the case of Mir Ahwad Hossein v. Mahomed Askari (1902) I.L.R. 29 Calc. 726 was brought to our notice, and it subsequently appeared that we were under a misapprehension on the facts of the case. As we had not signed our judgment, we thought it proper to hear both the learned vakils again to-day.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned vakil for the opposite party that we cannot, having once delivered our judgment, review the same. We entertain no doubt that it is competent to us to do so. The terms of Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code are general, and we have not signed our judgment. The,, same view may reasonably be inferred from the case of In the matter of the petition of Gibbons (1886) I.L.R. 14 Calc. 42 and a very extreme case is that of Queen-Empress v. Lalit Tiwari (1899) I.L.R. 21 All. 177, where it was held that a judgment or order of the High Court is not complete until it is sealed in accordance with the Rules of the Court, and up to that time may be altered by the Judge or Judges concerned therewith without any formal procedure by way of review of judgment being taken.

(3.) Our attention was called to a case of the Bombay High Court, Queen-Empress v. Fox (1885) I.L.R. 10 Bom. 176. If that case is an authority for the proposition advanced, we must respectfully decline to follow it. We, therefore, proceed to consider this, Rule on the merits.