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 Judge cannot set aside the first order passed in appeal dismissing the appeal when neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared and cannot order rehearing of the appeal. Construing Ss. 369 and 424 Cri. P.C., the Supreme Court observed that the appellate court could not pass an order of rehearing of the appeal in exercise of the inherent powers when S. 369 read with S. 424 of the Code specifically prohibit the altering or reviewing of its order by a court. It was further observed that the inherent powers cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits the court from doing.

The learned Counsel submitted that this decision may not be applicable to the exercise of the powers of the High Court as a court of revision under S. 561-A Cri. P.C. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 561-A Cri. P.C. does not in any way enlarge the powers conferred under the Code especially when it is provided in the Code that no court when it has signed the judgment, shall alter or review the same. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 cited with approval the Privy Council decisions in Jairam Das v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 94 and Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18, and held that it is now well settled that the section confers no new powers on the High Court and that it merely safeguards all the existing inherent powers possessed by the court necessary to secure the ends of justice. The same view is stated by the Supreme Court in Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri.) 373 : (AIR 1964 SC 1).

It is idle to contend that S. 369 Cri. P.C. is not applicable to criminal revisions for the court exercising its powers of revision under S. 439 Cri. P.C. exercises only some of the powers conferred on a court of appeal. The powers of revision cannot be stated to be larger than that of a court of appeal. In a recent decision of this court in Anthony Das v. State, 1963 Mad WN Cri 67 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 224) Sadasivam J. also took the view that the High Court has no inherent power to alter or review its own judgment. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. This petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document