Judgment

Narasimham, C J

[1] This is a petition to revise the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Sambalpur, maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323 , I. P. C., and the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed on them by a First Class Magistrate of Sambalpur. The revision petition was put up before me for admission on the 28th September, 1956 and after hearing Mr. Chatterji for the petitioners I passed the following order :

"This revision is admitted so far as petitioner Lachman Sindhi is concerned on the question of sentence only. He will continue on the same bail.

The revision is dismissed in respect of petitioners Nam Deo Sindhi and Puranmal Sindhi. Immediate steps should be taken to commit these two petitioners to jail to serve out their sentences."

[2] The charge against the three petitioners, was that on account of previous grudge they, on the 30th September, 1955, severely assaulted one Sardar Balbir Singh, Travelling Ticket Examiner on the South Eastern Railway while he was proceeding along Jharsuguda bazar. The motive for this dastardly attack was said to be his action in charging petitioner No. 1 Namdeo Sindhi with penalty for having travelled in the train without a ticket on a previous occasion. A knife was also said to have been used by the said Namdeo Sindhi.

The trial Court thought that a substantive sentence of imprisonment was necessary in a case of this type and that, as Namdeo Sindhi was the principal offender, he should be given a more severe sentence than the other two petitioners. The appellate Court fully agreed with the trial Court as regards the adequacy of the sentence on all the three petitioners.

[3] The revision petition of Namdeo Sindhi and Puranmal Sindhi was summarily dismissed by me on the 28th September, 1956, and the revision petition of Lachman Sindhi alone was admitted on the question of sentence, but at the time of the hearing of the petition Mr. Chatterji on his behalf submitted that the order of summary dismissal of the petition as against Namdeo Sindhi and Puranmal Sindhi may be reviewed by me because the parties had settled their dispute amicably and the injured person, Sardar Balbir Singh, had compounded the offence prior to the 28th September, 1956.

An affidavit sworn by Balbir Singh dated the 3rd December, 1956, was also filed in this Court from which it appears that sometime in the third week of September, 1956, through the intervention of third parties, he had compounded the offence. He also appeared before this Court and admitted his signature in the petition, and said that he had settled the dispute. Mr. Chatterji submitted that when he filed this revision petition on the 28th September, 1956 he was not aware of the fact that a few days before that date the offence had been lawfully compounded and that this was a good; ground for this Court to review its order dated the 28th September, 1956.

[4] Counsel for the both sides were heard on-the question as to whether this Court has the power to review its previous order summarily dismissing the criminal revision petition in the light of new facts placed before it subsequently.

[5] Mr. Chatterji urged that the summary dismissal of a criminal revision petition by the High Court is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 369, Cr. P. C., nor is it a 'judgment or order of an appellate Court' for the purpose of Section 430 of that Code and consequently the finality of the 'judgments' or orders referred to in those two Sections has no application. Hence, according to him, the inherent power of the Court under Section 561A, Cr. P. C., may be invoked, especially in a case of this type where, on the admitted facts, it is clear that the offence has been lawfully com-pounded prior to the date of summary dismissal of the revision petition.

According to Mr. Chatterji, the lawful compounding of the offence resulted in the acquittal of the three petitioners prior to the 28th September, 1956, and though this fact was