1958 (10) TMI 64 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court has the power to revoke, review, recall, or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and rehear the same.
2. The circumstances under which such power can be exercised.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the High Court has the power to revoke, review, recall, or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and rehear the same.

The primary question addressed is whether the High Court has the power to review its own decisions in criminal revisions. It is acknowledged that no specific section in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) grants such power explicitly. However, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 561-A of the CrPC, which states that "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

The judgment clarifies that Section 561-A does not confer new powers but preserves the inherent powers the Court already possessed. These inherent powers can only be exercised in areas not covered by specific provisions of the CrPC. The inherent power is limited to ensuring that the ends of justice are met and cannot be invoked if it contradicts any specific provision of the CrPC.

The judgment references several cases, including Emperor v. K. Nazir Ahmad and Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam, to emphasize that inherent powers are supplementary to the specific powers conferred by the CrPC and operate only in fields not covered by the specific provisions.

Issue 2: The circumstances under which such power can be exercised.

The judgment discusses the scope and nature of the inherent powers of the High Court. It is established that inherent power can be exercised for three specific purposes mentioned in Section 561-A:
1. To give effect to any order under the CrPC.
2. To prevent abuse of the process of any court.
3. To secure the ends of justice.

The Court examines various sections of the CrPC, including Sections 369, 424, and 430, to determine whether they cover the inherent power to review. Section 369 states that no court, once it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. However, this section applies primarily to trial courts and not to appellate or revisional courts.

The judgment also refers to Jairam Das v. Emperor and U. J. S. Chopra v. State of Bombay to highlight that the principle of finality applies to judgments in both appellate and revisional jurisdictions. The inherent power to review is not explicitly barred by Section 430, which deals with the finality of orders on appeal.

The Court concludes that while the High Court has no inherent power to review a judgment passed in its purely appellate jurisdiction, it does possess inherent power to review judgments in its revisional jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The judgment references several cases where the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 561-A, including Sri Ram v. Emperor, Chandrika v. Rex, Mohammad Wasi v. The State, and Ram Dass v. The State. These cases demonstrate that the High Court has exercised its inherent power to correct errors, secure the ends of justice, and prevent abuse of the process of the court.

The judgment also discusses the views of other High Courts and the Supreme Court on the matter. It references Queen v. Godai Raout, Queen Empress v. Durga Charan, and Govind Sahai v. Emperor, among others, to show that the inherent power to review was accepted by various High Courts even before the introduction of Section 561-A in 1923.

In conclusion, the judgment affirms that the High Court has the inherent power to revoke, review, recall, or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and rehear the same. This power is to be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, only in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to give effect to any order under the CrPC, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice.