Back
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Manjunath Urf Manju S/O. Jambanna Agastavar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Rep. By Karwar Town Police Station, Through State Pubic Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard the learned counsel Sri Amar Korrea along with Sri Vishwanath S. Bichagatti, for petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners by invoking the provisions of section 362 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prayer sought in this petition is as under:
b) Hold that, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are in judicial custody in this case in C.C.No.575/2015 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karwar, for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC from 27.04.2015, their date of remand and further hold that, the Petitioners have undergone full sentence as imposed upon them by judgment and order dated 22.06.2018.
c) Direct the re
A court cannot review its own judgment once signed, except to correct clerical errors, and inherent powers to recall judgments are limited to jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.
The court clarified that a dismissal for default does not amount to a final order, allowing recall and reinstatement for hearings on merits under inherent powers of the High Court.
The High Court lacks the power to review or recall its orders after they have been signed, as it becomes functus officio and such actions are barred under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Petitions dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a bona fide reason for absence, circumventing the prohibition of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
An application for recall of judgment is maintainable as a procedural review, but the specific bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. prevents the court from reviewing a judgment passed on merit after hearing....
When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.
The court upheld that representation by Amicus Curiae suffices for fair hearing, dismissing the recall application for lack of legal grounds.
(1) Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Section 362 of Cr.P.C. explicitly prohibits court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of case from altering or revie....
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
