9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code for reopening a case, interpretation of Section 561-A, scope of inherent power of the High Court, abuse of process of court, seeking re-hearing of a case already decided by the High Court. Analysis: The judgment involves an application filed under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to reopen a case that was already decided by the High Court. The petitioner was prosecuted for using a forged result intimation card to obtain a B.A. degree. The trial resulted in the petitioner being convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, while the other two accused were acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence against them. The petitioner's appeal led to a reduction in his sentence to nine months, following which he filed a revision petition in the High Court. The revision petition was dismissed by Kapur J., who ordered notice to be issued to the acquitted accused to show cause for setting aside their acquittal. The subsequent hearing before Chopra J. resulted in the discharge of the rule, as there was no conclusive proof that one of the accused forged the document in question. Since the principal offence of forgery was not proven against one accused, the charge of abetment against the other accused also failed. The petitioner now seeks to reopen his case based on the decision in the related matter. However, the court analyzed the scope of Section 561-A, emphasizing that it is meant to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of court processes. The court clarified that this provision cannot be used to reopen a case already decided by the High Court, whether in appellate or revisional proceedings. The judgment further discusses a case where a re-hearing was ordered under Section 561-A due to an abuse of court process. However, the court disagreed with the interpretation in that case, emphasizing that once a judgment is signed, it should not be altered except for correcting clerical errors. The court concluded that the present application does not fall within the purview of Section 561-A and dismissed it. The petitioner's request for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was also rejected. Overall, the judgment highlights the limitations of the High Court's inherent power and the importance of finality in judicial decisions.
|
