9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (5) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of sentence only. He will continue on the same bail. The revision is dismissed in respect of petitioners Nam Deo Sindhi and Puranmal Sindhi. Immediate steps should be taken to commit these two petitioners to jail to serve out their sentences. 2. The charge against the three petitioners, was that on account of previous grudge they, on the 30th September, 1955, severely assaulted one Sardar Balbir Singh, Travelling Ticket Examiner on the South Eastern Railway while he was proceeding along Jharsuguda bazar. The motive for this dastardly attack was said to be his action in charging petitioner No. 1 Namdeo Sindhi with penalty for having travelled in the train without a ticket on a previous occasion. A knife was also said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat a few days before that date the offence had been lawfully compounded and that this was a good; ground for this Court to review its order dated the 28th September, 1956. 4. Counsel for the both sides were heard on-the question as to whether this Court has the power to review its previous order summarily dismissing the criminal revision petition in the light of new facts placed before it subsequently. 5. Mr. Chatterji urged that the summary dismissal of a criminal revision petition by the High Court is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 369, Cr. P. C., nor is it a 'judgment or order of an appellate Court' for the purpose of Section 430 of that Code and consequently the finality of the 'jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent decision of the Supreme Court in U. J. S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, (S) AIR 1955 SC 633 (C). It is true that the facts on which that decision was based were slightly different. There the question for consideration was whether after the summary dismissal of an appeal the High Court could examine the case on merits once again when the State files a petition for enhancement of the sentence and the accused claims the right under Sub-section (6) of Section 439, Cr. P. C., to challenge the conviction. While answering this question in the affirmative their Lordships of the Supreme Court have discussed the effect of the summary dismissal of a criminal revision petition by the High Court and the circumstances under which such an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tless Their Lordships held that this would not preclude the State from applying for enhancement of the sentence and on such an application being made it is open to the convicted person to show cause against his conviction in exercise of a right, expressly conferred by Sub-section (6) of Section 439, Cr. P. C. 7. These weighty observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court which are clearly binding on me are. I think, sufficient to conclude the matter. My order dated 28th September, 1956 had the effect of confirming the conviction and sentence passed on petitioners Namdeo Sindhi and puranmal Sindhi, and it is not open to this Court to review or alter that order merely because it has subsequently come to light that prior to tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew or alteration by the same High Court. I do not think therefore that the Patna decision is sufficient authority for me to justify a review of my order dated the 28th September 1956. 9. The case of petitioner Lachman Sindhi may now be considered. It is true that his revision petition was admitted on the question of sentence only. He is said to be a boy aged 17 years. But as there was no final order summarily dismissing his revision petition, it is open to Mr. Chatterji to show that on account of the lawful composition of the offence there can be no legally subsisting conviction and sentence at present. The offence of which he was charged namely, Section 323, I. P. C., is lawfully compoundable without the permission of the Court, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
