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

1990 Supreme(All) 369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. P. SINGH
RAGHUVERA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION 400 Of 1989
Decided On : 05/24/1990

Advocates Appeared:
RAVINDRA SINGH, S.K.Tyagi, VIR SINGH

An order dismissing an application for revision for default as not pressed is not considered a judgement or final order, and therefore, can be reviewed or altered.

Headnote:

Section 362 Cr. P. C. - Revision Application Dismissal - The court held that an order dismissing an application for revision for default of the counsel as not pressed cannot be termed as a judgement or final order. Therefore, Section 362 Cr. P. C. does not bar the review or alteration of such an order.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants filed a revision application which was dismissed for default as not pressed. They contended that the order was bad in law, while the opposite parties argued that the court had no jurisdiction to recall its earlier order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order dismissing the revision application for default as not pressed was passed without going into the merit of the case and was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the court set aside the order and listed the case for admission in July, 1990.

Issues: The main issue was whether an order dismissing an application for revision for default as not pressed could be considered a judgement or final order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 362 Cr. P. C. and held that such an order cannot be considered a judgement or final order, and therefore, Section 362 Cr. P. C. does not bar the review or alteration of the order.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revisionist-applicants' application and set aside the order dated 14th March, 1990, listing the case for admission in July, 1990.

B. P. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision No. 400 of 1989 was filed by Raghuvira and four others against the order dated 17-3-89 passed by Sri Jagdish Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing the appeal of the applicants.

( 2 ) 14-3-1990 was fixed for admission of the revision application. The case was on the list and when none appeared for the applicants even in the revised list, the revision application was dismissed as not pressed.

( 3 ) THE contentions of the applicants are that once an application for revision is filed in the court, the same cannot be dismissed for default as not pressed and the order dated 14-3-1990 was bad in law. On the other hand the contentions of the opposite parties are that once the application for revision is dismissed for default as not pressed, the Court has no jurisdiction to recall its earlier order.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that Section 362 Cr. P. C. debars the court from altering or reviewing any final order or judgement given by a court except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. But the question arises whether an order dismissing an application for revision for default of the counsel as not pressed can be termed as a judgement or final order ? The term "judgement" has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code but a judgement means the expression of the opinion of the Court arrived at after due consideration of the entire material on record, including the arguments, if any, advanced at the Bar. A final order or judgement can only be passed in a criminal court when the court applies its mind to the merit of the case. In case the order is passed in a criminal proceeding and the application for revision is dismissed for default as not pressed, the said order cannot be taken as either final order or a judgement. Thus Section 362 Cr. P. C. is no bar to review ore alter the order dated 14th March, 1990. The order in question was passed without going into the merit of the case and is without jurisdiction and as such it has to be set aside.

( 6 ) ORDER :- The application dated 3-5-90 moved by the revisionist-applicants is allowed. The order dated 14th March, 1990 is set aside. List the case for admission in July, 1990. Application allowed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top