Per Virender Singh, J.

1. Through the instant application, the applicant-Gujjar Singh S/o Chattar Singh R/o Dayala Chak, Tehsil Hira Nagar, District Jammu seeks recalling of the order darted 2nd of September, 2002 vide which his Criminal Appeal bearing No. 20 of 1990, admitted for final hearing was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court on 2nd of September, 2002 primarily on the ground that the sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant was remitted and he was released from jail, thus, lost interest in prosecuting the appeal. While disposing of the appeal, the Bench accepted the Criminal Reference No. 25 of 1990 sent by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua under Section 374 Cr.PC.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Vidya Sagar, Advocate and perused the order sought to be recalled.

3. Mr. Sharma submits that may be by efflux of time the applicant-appellant was released from jail as his sentence was remitted, that by itself, could not be a ground to dismiss his main appeal against conviction without entering into the merits of case. He then submits that showing no interest in an admitted Criminal Appeal cannot be said to be a ground of dismissal. In such a situation, the same could be disposed of finally on merits even by engaging a counsel to defend the cause of the convict at the expenses of the State. It is virtually dismissal of appeal in default. The learned counsel then submits that even otherwise all the proceedings of the trial court were submitted to this court by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 374 Cr.PC for confirmation of the sentence, therefore, also the main appeal deserved to be disposed of on merits only and not in any other way. Hence this application.

4. We find substance in the submissions advanced by Mr. Sharma. The operative part of the order is reproduced as thus:

"On the last two dates of hearing none has appeared on behalf-of the appellant.

It appears to us that since the sentence awarded to the appellant has been remitted and he has been released from jail, he seems to have lost interest in the case and therefore, we have no option except to dismiss the appeal and accept the criminal reference.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the reference made by the trial court is accepted."

5. It is apparent on record that the appeal is not heard on merits. It was a statutory appeal, which was admitted as a matter of right. It goes without saying that this appeal called for re-appreciation of the entire evidence once again for the purposes of upholding the conviction or for any order favouring the accused. Admittedly, this exercise is not done in the present case.

6. We are appreciating this aspect yet from another angle. Had there been no appeal from the applicant-appellant against the conviction he had suffered by the trial court, still the entire case was to be re-scanned afresh once the statutory reference was made by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 374 CrPC and admitted also. It is ultimately-accepted vide order dated 2nd of September, 2002 sought to be recalled. This means that the conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned trial court is upheld by the Appellate Court. He could earn acquittal as well, had the appeal been decided on merits after re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record.

7. We are appreciating the present case on another legal platform also, as to whether the order dated 2nd of September, 2002 passed by a coordinate Bench having the same jurisdiction can be reviewed or altered as the main case finally stands disposed of. The statutory restraint is there in Section 369 of Code of Criminal Procedure Samvat 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as Code of 1989) corresponding to Section 362 of the Central Code. According to this section, the judgment once signed shall not be altered or reviewed except to correct the clerical error. In normal circumstances, the answer has to be no. The next aspect then debatable woul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document