1962 Supreme(AP) 52

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, KRISHNA RAO, UMAMAHESWARAM
Public Prosecutor, A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Devireddi Nagi Reddi - Respondent
Decided On : 03-23-62

Headnote:

The High Court has no inherent power to set aside its own judgment on the ground that it is erroneous in law or in fact. The judgment of a learned Judge altering the conviction under section 326, Indian Penal Code, into one under section 302, Indian Penal Code, in the exercise of his appellate powers under section 423 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not null and void and may not be quashed under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, Devireddi Nagi Reddi was tried by the Sessions Judge of Cuddapah in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1958 on a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of one Subbi Reddi. The learned sessions Judge convicted him under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The accused thereupon preferred criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1959 to this Court. As against the order of implied acquittal on the charge of murder there was no appeal to this Court by the State under section 417, Criminal Procedure Code. Sri Justice Sanjeeva row Nayudu suo motu issued a notice under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, to the respondent to show cause why the sentence passed on him should not be enhanced. Both Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1959 and Criminal revision Case No. 682 of 1958 were heard together by Sri Justice Sanjeeva Row Nayudu. The learned judge, by his Judgment, dated 6th July, 1959, altered the conviction from one under section 326, Indian Penal Code, to one under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced the repondent to imprisonment for life.

Finding of the Court:

The judgment of the learned Judge in altering the conviction under section 326, Indian Penal Code, into a conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, in the exercise of his appellate powers under section 423 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not null and void and may not be quashed under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues: 1. Whether there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the learned Judge actirg under sections 423 (1) (b) and 423 (1-A) Criminal Procedure Code, and altering the conviction under section 326, Indian Penal Code, into one under section 302, Indian Penal code, and whether the Judgment is consequently null and void ; 2. Whether in altering the finding tc a conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, the learned judge had not given a proper opportunity to the counsel appearing for the respondent (accused) ; 3. Whether on a true construction of rule 218 of the Criminal rules of Practice, the Judgment pronounced by a single Judge is void ; and 4. whether under the provisions of section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judgment is liab e to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression jurisdiction may be defined to be the power of a Court to hear and determine a cause ; to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it; or, in other words, by jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has, to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. 2. A judgment rendered by a Court having jurisdiction on parties and the subject-matter unless reversed or annulled in some proper proceeding is not open to contradiction or impeachment in respect of its validity, verity or binding effect by parties or privies in any collateral action or prcceeding except as discussed infra, section 434. for fraud in its procurement. Even if the judgment is voidable that is, so irregular or defective that it should be set aside or annulled on proper direct application for that purpose, it is well settled as a general rule that it is not subject to collateral impeachment as long as it stands unreversed and in force. 3. The boundary between an error of judgment and usurpation of power is pointed out by the learned Judge in the following terms : " The former is reversible by an appellate Court within a certain fixed time and it is there fore, only voidable ; the latter is an absolute nullity".

Final Decision: The application is dismissed. The only remedy open to the respondent is either to file an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the constitution and have the judgment set aside, or to move the State Government under the provisions of section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.