1. Can a criminal revision petition dismissed by the High Court for default of appearance be restored to file an applicat­ion under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. despite the provisions of Sec. 362 Cr. P.C. ? Criminal Revision No. 336/81 was cause listed in Court No. 6 from 7th to 10th June as item No. 49. On 10th June by a notice issued during the recess, some of the cases, including item No. 49, were transferred to and takan up in Court No.4 after recess as notified. As none appeared to press Criminal Revision application No. 336/81 when called, it was dismissed for default. In this application, supported by an affidavit, the petitioner prays for its restoration.

2. Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's Advocate was quite unware of the notice of transfer of cases issued o.i 10.6.82 during the recess, and was following the cause Hit in Court No 6; that the petitioner had been contesting the case with all seriousness and the order of dismissal for default has seriously prejudiced him; and that Section 362 Cr. P.C. is not applicable to High Court judgment; and he Prays that the petition be restored to file and beard on merits,

3. Mr. S. C. Das, the learned counsel for the opposite party demurs submitting that the order of dismissal for default is an order disposing of the case and this Court cannot alter or review the same in view of the provision of Sec. 362 Cr P.C.

Section 362 Cr. P.C. provides :

"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 case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

This Section corresponds to the old Section 369. It should be noted that the scope of the provision contained in the old Section has now been widened by including ''final orders dispos­ing of a case," in addition to ''judgments". The Joint Committee of the Parliament in this respect observed : "The Committee is of opinion that the prohibition in this clause should apply to every final order disposing of a case and not merely to a judgment in a trial.''

4. Mr. Goswami relying on Lal Singh vs. State, AIR 1970 Punjab & Hariyana 32, submits that the rule of finality embodied in Section 362 in Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Procedure does not, in terms, apply to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and that the purpose of S. 362 Cr. P. C. is not to pre­scribe a general rule of finality of all judgments of all crimi­nal Courts bat is only to prescribe finality for the judgment of the trial Court so far as the trial Court is concerned. In Lal Singh's case it was held that the old Section 369 in Chapter XXVI of the Code did not prescribe the general rule of finality of all judgments of all criminal Courts but only prescribed finality for the judgments of the trial Courts so far as the trial Court was concerned, relying on U.J. S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1966 S. C. 633 where, considering the rule of finality of criminal judgments in the particular context of the provisions of Section 439 (2) and (6) of the old Code, S. R. Das, J. (as he then was) in minority judgment, observed that there was indication in the Code itself that the purpose of section 369 was not to prescribe a general rule of finality of all judgments of all criminal Courts but was only to prescribe finality for the judgment of the trial Court so for as the trial Court was concerned ; and that the rule of finality could not in terms apply to the orders made by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, for Section 442 (S. 405 of new Code) of the Code which required the result of the revision proceedings to be certified to the Court by which the finding, sentence or order revised was recorded or passed, referred to it as its 'decision or order' and not 'judgment'. In the majo­rity judgment, however, it was held, inter alia, that the judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document