SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(AP) 73

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Putta Venkatrayudu - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 03-14-55

A High Court cannot rehear an appeal once its judgment has been signed, except to correct a clerical error.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 369 - RE-HEARING OF APPEAL - POWER OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 561-A - SCOPE - ACQUITTAL UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 34, INDIAN PENAL CODE - EFFECT ON CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 403 (1), CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY - CHARGE UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - VALIDITY - SECTIONS 236 AND 237, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code, for conspiring to murder and murdering the victim. The conviction was upheld by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 1954. The appellant filed an unnumbered petition seeking a rehearing of the appeal on the grounds that (i) the acquittal under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, barred the conviction under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code, and (ii) the Sessions Judge was under a misapprehension that the appellant was charged under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that it had no power to rehear the appeal as section 369, Criminal Procedure Code, expressly prohibited the alteration or review of a judgment once it had been signed, except to correct a clerical error. The Court also held that section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, did not confer any new powers on the High Court and that the Court could not, in purported exercise of inherent power, surmount the limitations imposed by section 369, Criminal Procedure Code. The Court further held that there was no acquittal of the appellant under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and that the trial was not vitiated by any irregularity or illegality in procedure.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had the power to rehear the appeal. 2. Whether the acquittal under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, barred the conviction under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code. 3. Whether the Sessions Judge was under a misapprehension that the appellant was charged under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 369, Criminal Procedure Code, expressly prohibits the alteration or review of a judgment once it has been signed, except to correct a clerical error. 2. Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, does not confer any new powers on the High Court and the Court cannot, in purported exercise of inherent power, surmount the limitations imposed by section 369, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. There was no acquittal of the appellant under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. 4. The trial was not vitiated by any irregularity or illegality in procedure.

Final Decision: The High Court rejected the unnumbered petition and declined to rehear the appeal.

BHIMASANKARAM, J.

( 1 ) BY a judgment dated 10th January, 1955, we disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 1954. The appellant therein was the first accused in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1954 in the Court of Session, Visakhapatnam division. He was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by our judgment in the appeal. It may be no ted that he was tried along with two other accused in the Sessions Court and there were two different charges framed, one against him and the other two accused (first charge) and another against him and the third accused (second charge ). The charges are as follows : (1) That you three on or about 28th day of March, 1954, before 11 P. M. at Koruprolu, agreed to cause to be done an illegal act to wit murdering Putta Appalaraju and that the same act to wit murder of Putta Appalaraj was done in pursuance of the agreement and you three thereby committed an offence punishable under section I2o-B read with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. (2) That you (1) Putta Venkatrayudu (A-1) and (2), Putta Chinnayya (A-3) on the night of 28th day of March, 1954, at about 11 P. M. at Koruprolu in "furtherance of the said conspiracy and in furtherance of common intention of you both, did jointly commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Putta Appalaraju of Koruprolu, by inflicting injuries on his head and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 lead with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. "

( 2 ) THE learned Sessions Judge found that there was not sufficient evidence to hold A-2 and A-3 guilty under the first charge. He also gave the benefit of doubt to A-3 under the second charge. The learned sessions Judge convicted the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 1954 under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code, as already stated above.

( 3 ) MR. G. K. V. Devar, the learned counsel for the appellant, now seeks through this unnumbered petition a rehearing of the appeal mainly on two points. His first contention is that there is an acquittal of the appellant under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and that the acquittal bars the Court from convicting him upon the same facts under a different section, so long as the acquittal is in force, by virtue of section 403 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, he states that the learned Sessions Judge was under a misapprehension that the first accused was actually charged under section 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal code. He admits that these points were not raised at the time of the hearing of the appeal, but he urges that it is necessary in the interests of Justice that the appeal should be reheard on the ground that an act of Court should not prejudice any party and that, if there is a clear error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice this Court is not without power to rectify it.

( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the merits, we must observe that no statutory provision or binding authority has been brought to our notice which enables us to exercise the power invoked by the appellant s advocate. Section 369 of the criminal Procedure Code runs thus :"save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of a High Court by the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its Judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error. "

( 5 ) THIS, indeed, the learned counsel says that he does not dispute, but he urges that we can treat our previous judgment as non est and consider the appeal afresh. In support of his contention, he relies on section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. We are unable to agree that section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, enables the High court to do what section 369, C





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top