IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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:

a) Call for the records of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Criminal Revision Petition bearing No.100118/2020, Crl.Appeal No.31/2019 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, Trial Court records in C.C.No.575/2015 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karwar, for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 r/w. 34 of IPC, and review the order dated 27.11.2020.

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 release of the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 in this case from judicial custody;

d) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to meet the ends of justice.

3. Brief facts in this case are that, on the basis of an incident dated 30.11.2011, respondent Karwar Town Police registered Crime No.151/2011 for the offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 of IPC against the petitioners, arraigned them as accused Nos.1 and 2. The charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/accused and the petitioners were convicted by the trial Court for the said offences.

4. The petitioners/accused challenged the said order of conviction passed by the trial Court before the Prl. District and Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.31/2019, wherein the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction. However, the benefit of set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of detention undergone during the enquiry and trial, was extended to the petitioners, by its order dated 20.02.2019.

5. The petitioners/accused preferred criminal revision petition before this Court challenging the order of the appellate Court. After providing reasonable opportunity of hearing, this Court rejected the petition by a detailed order dated 27.11.2020.

6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in the revision petition are before this Court seeking a review of the order passed in the revision petition. However, in the prayer sought for, the petitioners have sought to call for the records and consider this petition once again to review the order passed by this Court.

7. It is vehement contention of the learned counsel Sri Amar Korrea representing the petitioner that the impugned order passed by this Court requires to be recalled to the extent of denial of benefit of the provisions of section 428 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of mitigating circumstances and legal grounds urged and on several other grounds urged in this petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 being a juvenile as on the date of occurrence of the accident, could not have been subjected to trial all along and convicted for the offence and therefore the order passed by the trial Court, the appellate Court and this Court is bad in law as petitioner No.2 ought to have been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board to be subjected to trial in accordance with law. Learned counsel has also argued on the provisions of section 267 of Cr.P.C., section 260 to 270 of Cr.P.C., which was not extended to the petitioners/accused. On these grounds he contends that the order passed requires to be recalled and reviewed. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been in custody for more than 10 years and non extending the benefit of s