IMPORTANT POINT
A Sub-ordinate Criminal Court does not have any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT

V. Khalid, J. - This criminal appeal, by special leave, involves the question:

Whether a Sub-ordinate Criminal Court has any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code? Incidentally, the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution also comes up for consideration.

2. The facts of the case can be stated first. The appellants, two in number, are the accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Clan, New Delhi, disclosing an offence punishable under section 67 and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952, read with Regulation 106 of the Metallifarous Mines Regulation, 1961. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued summons to the accused to appear on 6.1.1972. On 6.1.1972 neither the complainant nor the accused were present and therefore, the Magistrate passed the following order:

"Accused was not present. None present for the complainant also. The complaint is hereby dismissed in default and for want of prosecution."

On 13.1.1972, the complainant filed an application for restoration of the complaint. On 20.1.1972, the Magistrate passed the following order:

“I heard Shri T.S. Sodhi. The complaint be restored. Summon accused for 21/2 ."

On 21.2.1972, the accused petitioners moved an application before the Magistrate stating that the order dated 20.1.1972 was without jurisdiction since the Magistrate had become functus officio, by his order dated 6.1.1972. This application was rejected by the Magistrate by his order dated 8.5.1972. He was of the view that he had inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to review and recall his earlier orders.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 6.7.1973.

4. This was followed by another revision before the High Court of Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision by its order dated 10.1.1975, relying upon an earlier decision of the same Court to the effect that a criminal court had certain inherent powers, though not specifically mentioned in the Code.

5. On 5.8.1976, this Court delivered its Judgment in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh1 holding that no criminal court had any inherent jurisdiction, not provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners, armed with this decision, moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.12.1976; contending that all proceedings, after the dismissal of the; complaint by order dated 6.1.1972, were without jurisdiction in the light of the law laid down by this Court and requested the Magistrate to drop further proceedings. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted this contention and by his order dated 16.7.1977 dropped the proceedings against the petitioners.

6 Aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, to whom this case stood transferred, reversed the decision of the Magistrate by his order dated 7.1.1978 and held that: so far as Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the ratio of these decisions is concerned, there can be no dispute whatsoever. At the same time a pronouncement as to the position of law in a judicial decision by the Supreme Court cannot be treated as a sort of legislation by the Parliament giving retrospective effect as to enjoin reopening of all matters which have already become final and closed.”

7. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners moved the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash further proceedings, relying upon the decision of this Court mentioned above and contending that the order of the Sessions Judge was wrong. This revision petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on 9.8.1978; observing:

"I find no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order