The High Court has the inherent power to review, recall or alter its earlier decision in a criminal revision and to rehear the same under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code.

SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The point of law which has necessitated the reference of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application to a Division Bench may be formulated in the following terms :-

"Is this High Court empowered to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a Criminal Revision and rehear the same ?"

The facts which deserve notice for the limited purpose of this application may now be surveyed. By his order dated the 22nd October, 1967, the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur, in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, held that Karnail Singh and others were in possession of the land in dispute on the 6th of May, 1967, and directed the delivery of the same to them. Against this order, Lal Singh and others (respondents in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application) went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who by his order dated 1st April, 1968, made a recommendation to the High Court for the acceptance of the revision on the basis of the reasons given therein. It was recommended that the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 22nd October, 1967, be set aside, and the possession of the land be ordered to be delivered to Lal Singh and others.

2. The learned Sessions Judge had directed that the parties, if they so desire, may appear in the High Court on the 3rd May, 1968. However, it appears that the matter came up before the Registrar on the 13th of May, 1968, and that none of the parties was then present. Notices, on that date, were directed to be issued for the 27th May, 1968, and all the parties were served. Some of the respondents therein, amongst them the present petitioners in this application namely Sher Singh, Kartar Singh, etc., did not put in any appearance and consequently on the 24th July, 1968, actual date notices were issued to them by registered post acknowledgement due intimating thereby that the revision would be heard by this Court on the 31st July, 1968. On the said date the revision came up for hearing before Jindra Lal J. and it was found that actual date notices had not come back duly served. The State was represented through counsel and the recommendation was not opposed on its behalf. The learned Single Judge notices that some remark was made that the respondents, other than the State, were no longer interested in the matter on account of the Civil litigation having been compromised in the High Court and consequently on the 1st August, 1968, when the matter came up before Jindra Lal J. he was pleased to pass the following order :-

"This revision is reported for acceptance and is not opposed. For the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, the revision is accepted, the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 22nd October, 1967, is set aside, and it is ordered that possession of the land, which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings, be delivered to the petitioners-tenants."

3. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application was then moved on behalf of Sher Singh, Kartar Singh, Charag Singh, Suraj Singh and Kapur Singh, under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, on the 6th August, 1968. It was averred therein that the actual date notices issued by this Court for appearance to them on the 31st July, 1968, were actually delivered to them on the 4th of August, 1968, and the reports on the registered covers dated the 31st July, 1968, clearly show that none of the present applicants was present in the village on that day. It was further averred that the order dated the 1st August, 1968, which was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to them is gravely prejudicial to their interests and the same be vacated. Notice of the present application was issued to the respondents and accepted on their behalf by the counsel and meanwhile the operation of the order dated 1st August, 1968, was stayed. At the hearing of the application, it was contended on behalf of Lal Singh etc. respondents that there is no power in