1962 (1) TMI 91 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the application for revision.
2. Validity of the order for rehearing of an appeal.
3. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to set aside the order dismissing the appeal.
4. Interpretation of sections 423, 422, 367, 369, and 424 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Exercise of inherent powers by the Court.
6. Competency of the succeeding Sessions Judge to review the order.

Analysis:

The case involves an appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, directing the rehearing of an appeal. The appellants were convicted by the Magistrate and appealed against their conviction. The appeal was dismissed due to their absence. The subsequent application for restoration was allowed by the first Sessions Judge, Sri Tej Pal Singh, based on sufficient cause for non-appearance and procedural errors in the initial judgment.

The succeeding Sessions Judge, Sri Tripathi, held that the order for rehearing was ultra vires. The High Court upheld this view, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court determined the central issue of whether Sri Tej Pal Singh had the authority to set aside the initial order and order a rehearing. The Court ruled that he lacked such power as the Code prohibits altering or reviewing a judgment once signed, except for clerical errors.

The Court clarified the requirements of sections 423, 422, 367, 369, and 424 of the Code. It highlighted that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default, emphasizing the need to adjourn or consider the appeal on merits. The Court criticized the first Sessions Judge's failure to provide detailed reasons but affirmed that this did not grant him the power to set aside the judgment himself.

Regarding the exercise of inherent powers, the Court held that these powers cannot override specific prohibitions in the Code. The competency of the succeeding Sessions Judge to review the order was also upheld. The Court concluded that while Sri Tej Pal Singh had jurisdiction to consider the application, he exceeded his authority by ordering a rehearing, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the initial order for rehearing was without jurisdiction, and Sri Tej Pal Singh lacked the power to set it aside. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of procedural requirements and limitations on the Court's authority in criminal appeals.