Order.- This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No. 571 of 1972 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class, Cannanore, praying that the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.P. No. 253 of 1975 may be interfered with in review and the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioners be quashed, as a second revision is maintainable in the light of the decision of Khalid, J., in Sankaran Nair v. Madhavan Pillai1, that it is settled law that the procedure to be adopted for cases which started before the coming into force of the new Code is the procedure under the old Code.

2. The petitioners along with six others were convicted for offences punishable under section 341, Indian Penal Code, and they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150 each. Criminal appeals filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry, resulted only in the confirmation of the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court. The 7th accused thereafter filed Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 1974 and accused 1 to 6 and 8 filed Cr.R.P.No. 36 of 1974 before the Court of Session, Tellicherry, against the judgment of the Courts below. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused except the petitioners. Against the order of the Court of Session, the petitioners filed Crl.R.P.No. 203 of 1975 before this Court and the same was dismissed on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of the bar under section 399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The ground taken in support of the reliefs claimed in the petition is that in the light of the decision reported in Sankaran Nair v. Madhavan Pillai1, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Philip v. Director of Enforcement2 and also the express provisions contained in section 484(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court committed an illegality in holding that a second revision was not maintainable.

4. There is no express or specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure conferring powers of review of a judgment or order which has become final on a criminal Court. A criminal Court cannot ordinarily review its own judgment, although it could do so in a few exceptional and extraordinary cases where there has been denial of natural justice, or the judgment or order has been passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance or where cases have been disposed of not on merits or where the facts of the case are shocking to the judicial conscience and grave injustice has been done to any party, etc., etc. These are only a few illustrations, which cannot be taken as exhaustive. It is not desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible or invariable rule in this regard. It has to be left to the discretion of the Court, to determine whether inherent power can or cannot be exercised on the facts and in the circumstances of an individual case. The principle of finality of judgments or orders passed in an appellate Court on appeal incorporated in section 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would equally apply to the judgments or orders passed by the High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Inherent power under this section is to be exercised only for one of the three purposes mentioned therein. In the absence of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to govern a certain or particular matter, it shall have to be considered whether the omission is deliberate or is by oversight or inadvertence. Where there is no express prohibition, the Court shall have to see whether the prohibition can be implied from the various provisions in the Code. There is no general power possessed by the High Court to review, to reconsider or revise a judgment or order dul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document