Failure to provide the accused with a reasonable opportunity to be heard renders the court's order null and void, and the court cannot pronounce a valid legal judgment without affording the accused a fair hearing.

Odgers, J.

1. In this case accused 1 and 3 were convicted by the 1st class Magistrate of Yellamanchilli of forgery for the purpose of cheating (S. 468 Indian Penal Code), and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court--also 1st accused was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 300 with 3 months rigorous imprisonment in default, and 3rd accused was fined Rs. 150 with two months rigorous imprisonment in default. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam confirmed the conviction and sentences. The case was taken up in revision by Devadoss, J., on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The case came on for hearing on 27-9-1923 before Krishnan, J., who held that the conviction was correct but enhanced the sentences on each accused to six months rigorous imprisonment retaining the sentence of fine. Mr. T. S. Anantaraman, Vakil for 1st accused, stated he had no instructions and 1st accused did not appear in person. 3rd accused appeared neither in person nor by pleader. On 25-10-1923 Krishnan, J., vacated his previous order, no doubt, because he found it had, been passed without jurisdiction, and directed the case to be posted later, on the question of enhancement. The case, therefore, came on before Waller, J., on 8-11-1923, who referred it to a bench as the Public Prosecutor proposed to argue that Krishnan, J., had no power to vacate his order, and the question has accordingly been argued before us on that point, and also on Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear that under Section 369, Criminal Procedure Code, the judgment of this Court in a Criminal matter as soon as it is signed, is final and the Court is functus officio as soon as that is done. Thereafter there is no power to revise or alter that decision. In the matter of Gibbons ILR 14 C 42 (FB) and Queen Empress v. C. P. Fox ILR 10 B 176 (FB) and Ranga Rao v. Emperor (1912) 23 MLJ 371 where it was held that the High Court has no power to review an order made in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The old section ran as follows.

No Court, other than a High Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except as provided in Sections 395 and 484 or to correct a clerical error. Petheram, C. J., in I.L.R. 14 Cal. 42 at page 47, said: "In as much as it is not shown to us that, before the passing of this section, any power of revision existed in the High Court, that section did not, in my opinion, create any such power.

2. The new section runs as follows:

Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of a High Court established by Royal Charter, by the Letters Patent of such High Court, no Court when it has signed its Judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error.

3. It has not been argued that the amendment has changed the scope or effect of the section, and it is not shown that any such power is reserved to this High Court by its Letters Patent. In Rajjab Ali v. Emperor ILR 46 C 60, in which the Full Bench in In the matter of Gibbons ILR 14 C 42 (FB) was followed, there occurs the remark: (at p. 63)

The result of the decisions of this Court subsequent to the Full Bench case seems to be this that where a case is disposed of merely for default of appearance or where an order is passed to the prejudice of an accused person and by mistake or inadvertance no opportunity has been given to him to be heard in his defence such an order is not one to which the ruling in the Full Bench case applies." In In re Kunhamdd Hap (1923) ILR 46 M 382 : 44 MLJ 450 it was held that neither Section 364 nor Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to revise or review the Judgment of one or more of its Judges in a criminal appeal or revision. The learned Judges (Oldfield and Devadoss, JJ.) in a very careful Judgment examined all the case-law on the point and held as above set out. It appears to me, therefore,