SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Mad) 91

P.S.KAILASAM
S. Rangaswami – Appellant
Versus
R. Narayanan – Respondent


Advocates:
George Alexander, for Petitioners; R. Srinivasan, for Respondent; S.R. Srinivasan for Public Prosecutor, for the State.

ORDER : This petition is filed under S. 561-A, Cri. P.C. for reviewing the judgment of this court passed in Cri. R. C. 476 of 1964. This court in revision confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners for the offences of criminal trespass. Under S. 369, Cri. P.C. no criminal court when it has signed the judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. It is submitted that this section is not applicable to the High Court especially when it is disposing of appeals or revisions. It has been repeatedly held by this court from In re Arumugha Padayachi, 1926 Mad WN 147 : (AIR 1926 Mad 420) that a criminal court has no power to review its judgment when once it has been signed. The learned counsel on the authority of the Full Bench decision in Raj Narain v. State, AIR 1959 All 315 (FB) submitted that the High Court has power to review and recall or alter its earlier decision in a criminal revision under S. 561-A Cri. P.C. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1208 it was held that the appellate court has no power to review or restore an appeal which has been disposed of. A Sessions Ju


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top