The court's decision emphasized the limitations on the court's power to alter or review a judgment or final order, as imposed by section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By the present application, the applicant, seeks to review the order dated 16th December, 2000 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000 by this Court and to restore the said writ petition for hearing the matter on merits.

3. As regards the maintainability of the application in the manner in which it has been filed, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Krishna Narain Lal and another v. State of Bihar and another)1, reported in 1999(9) S.C.C. 247 it is submitted that the bar under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not affect in the case in hand as the order dated 16-12-2000 is not a judgment within the meaning of the said expression under section 362 of the Cri.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that, in view of the framing of the charge, there is no cause for the applicant to approach the Magistrate objecting to the charge already framed and in that regard reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 94 and (Nandkishor Rampal Lohiya and others v. State of Maharashtra)3, reported in 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)546. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others)4, reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 465 submitted that this Court is functus officio in connection with Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000, and therefore, this Court cannot entertain the application filed by the applicant.

4. The Apex Court in Krishna Narain Lal's case has observed that the High Court was not right in rejecting the application solely on the ground that earlier application was dismissed. In the said case the party had sought to challenge the First Information Report lodged against him by filing application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was dismissed for default of appearance. The appellant, therefore, filed another application seeking the same relief but the same was dismissed on the ground that earlier application having been dismissed there was no scope for entertaining the second application. Apparently, the second application was not in the nature of review application but it was a fresh application under section 482 of the Cri.P.C. and in those circumstances of the case the Apex Court observed that the High Court was not right in rejecting the application solely on the ground that it was not maintainable, because the first application was dismissed.

5. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Apex Court in Hari Singh Mann's case, while considering the scope of section 362 of the Cri.P.C., after considering its earlier decisions in (Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purushottam Mondkar)5, reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 376 as well as in the matter of (State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala)6, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 87 has held that section 362 of the Code mandates that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document