2007(2) Crimes 631 (Gau.)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.G. Agarwal, J.
Dharma Saikia - Petitioner
versus
State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case No. 6 of 2000
Decided on 12-12-2006
Result : Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P.G. Agarwal, J. - This is an application filed by accused/convict Dharma Saikia under section 482, Cr. P.C., for review of the order, passed by this Court on 8.9.2004, in Criminal Revision No. 31/99, whereby the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant was upheld.
2. The facts leading to the present petition may be noted.
3. In Sessions Case No. 56(N.L.)/94, the petitioner-accused Dharma Saikia was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, for commission of offence under section 376, I.P.C. and thereafter, vide judgment dated 14.8.1997, the Trial Court held the accused guilty under section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- only and, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 16 (3)/97 before the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur. Vide judgment dated 29.11.1997, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back for fresh examination of the accused under section 313, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the trial was concluded and vide judgment dated 7.9.1998, the Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant under section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for one month. The said order of conviction was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 73/98, before the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, and vide impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 31/1999 and the said revision was heard by this Court and, vide judgment dated 8.9.2004, this Court dismissed the revision holding inter alia there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and the evidence on record fully establish the guilt of accused and the conviction and sentence under section 376, I.P.C. needs no interference.
4. The petitioner thereafter, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 3990/2005 and the said S.L.P. was disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 8.4.2005. The order of the Apex Court reads as follows:
“Upon hearing the Court made the following Order :
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition on the ground that he wants to file a review petition before the Appropriate Court. Permission sought for is granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner for filing a review petition.”
5. The petitioner thereafter, filed the present application for review stating inter alia some other major points of law as well as facts were not properly placed and presented before this Court and that the Courts below did not consider the F.I.R. etc. in proper perspective and , as such, the petitioner prayed for exercise of power of review in the interest of justice.
6. On the question of maintainability of the present reivew petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that leave to file review petition has been granted by the Apex Court in its order dated 8.4.2005, as quoted above, and as such the matter needs no consideration. We find from the order that the S.L.P. was dismissed as the petitioner wanted to withdraw the same. The Apex Court only granted liberty to the petitioner for filing a review petition and the question, whether a review petition is maintainable or not, was never considered by the Apex Court. The petitioner is required to satisfy us that an order passed by this Court in criminal revision can be reviewed in spite of the provisions under section 362, Cr.P.C. Section 362 of the Cr. P.C. reads as follows:
“362. Court not to alter judgment- Save as otherwise provided by this 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
Rajendra Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Ors.
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr.
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Surendra Kumar
Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee
Superintendent and Remembrances of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.