Acting CJ for himself and on behalf of Dr. A.S. Anand and Mir JJs

(1) On the night intervening 17th/18th of July, 1973, one, Rajinder Singh, was found carrying timber in truck No. 4475/JKA in contravention of the Land Transport Rules, framed under Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act. The relevant Rule reads :

"No timber or other forest produce shall be moved on any route on which a depot or check post has been established unless, covered by a pass issued by the Forest Officer or the Revenue Officer or by the owner of a private forest or his agent.,

The timber was being transported without a pass. The contravention is punishable under Section 16 of the Forest Act. The accused Rajinder Singh was put on trial under Section 15/16 of the Forest Act in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur. On consideration of the evidence, the learned magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to two months rigorous imprisonment. He also ordered the confiscation of the truck. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur upheld the judgment. The accused came up in revision to this court. Along side the owner of the truck viz. New Karan Bus Service, also filed a petition challenging the order of confiscation. Both these revisions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 26-12-1975 by one of us. The owners revision was disposed of in his absence in these words :

This brings me to the revision challenging the order of confiscation. Section 28 of the Forest Act. clearly provides that all tools, beats, carts, motor vehicles, and cattle used in committing any forest offence, shall be liable to confiscation. On the findings given by courts below, there can be hardly any doubt that the truck in question was involved in the transportation of timber without the requisite permission. The finding was not challenged before me as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to challenge it. I have, however examined the record and see no reason to interfere with this finding. Accordingly the order of confiscation made by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court cannot be held to be unjustified. The revision challenging the confiscation is therefore, dismissed"

(2) The owner filed an application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. for recalling this order. The application came to be heard by one of us. At the time of hearing it was discovered that on the question whether under Section 561-A Cr P. C. the High Court has power to revoke, review, recall, or alter its own order in a criminal case, the judicial opinion in the country was devided. The High Courts of Allahabad, Punjab, Mysore and Patna had held that the High Court had such power while the High Courts of Madras, Andhra Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh had expressed a contrary view; Accordingly the following question was referred for an authoritative decision by a larger bench of this court namely :

"Whether the High Court has power to revoke review, recall, or alter, its own decision in a criminal case and rehear the case and in particular, whether it has the power to do so, in respect of a decision previously rendered in a criminal revision?

(3) The question has been dealt with at length in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Versus Ram Chander Agarwal etc (A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 87). The Supreme Court has held that Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, precludes a High Court from altering or reviewing a judgment passed in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction when once it has signed it. Further the court has held, that Section 561-A cannot be invoked to exercise power which are inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code and consequently a High Court has no power to alter or review its own judgment which is specifically prohibited by Section 369 by providing that no court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error.

(4) Section 369 of the Code of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document