9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions judge to review or set aside an order. 2. Dismissal of a revision petition for default. 3. Applicability of section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Interpretation of procedural defects in reviewing an order. 5. Exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the jurisdiction of the Sessions judge to review or set aside an order. The petitioner challenged an order restoring a criminal revision petition after it was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court examined the authority of the Sessions judge to recall his own order under section 362 of the Code. The judge concluded that the Sessions judge had no power to review his own order, and the Income-tax Department should have filed a revision petition against the dismissal order. 2. The issue of dismissing a revision petition for default was raised. The petitioner argued that a revision petition cannot be dismissed for default and must be decided on merits. The court cited previous judgments to support the position that a revision petition can only be dismissed on merits. The court emphasized that there is no provision for a court to set aside its wrong order once a revision petition is dismissed. 3. The applicability of section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code was discussed. The court highlighted that section 362 bars the review or alteration of a judgment by a criminal court, including the High Court, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. The judge emphasized that the only recourse for the aggrieved party is to approach a higher court rather than seeking restoration by the same court. 4. The interpretation of procedural defects in reviewing an order was analyzed. The respondent contended that the order dismissing the revision petition was administrative and could be revoked. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the order was strictly criminal in nature and subject to the limitations imposed by the Code. The court emphasized that the judgment cited by the respondent was not applicable in the present criminal context. 5. The exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was discussed. The respondent proposed that the court could set aside the order dated May 18, 1984, using inherent powers without a formal application. However, the court disagreed, stating that a formal application was necessary for a proper legal examination. The judge ultimately accepted the petition, setting aside the order dated October 27, 1984, and directing that the revision petition remain dismissed. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the limitations on the Sessions judge's power to review orders, emphasized the importance of deciding revision petitions on merits, and highlighted the restrictions imposed by section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court underscored the necessity of following legal procedures and formal applications for setting aside orders, ultimately disposing of the criminal revision petition.
|
