O. H. MOOTHAM, CJ.

( 1 ) THE question which has been referred to this Bench is "whether this Court has power to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a Criminal Revision and rehear the same? If so, in what circumstances?"

( 2 ) IT is common ground that there is no section of the Code of Criminal Procedure which specifically confers such power on this Court, but it is contended that the Court has an inherent power to review a judgment or order previously made by it on a criminal revision application if it considers it expedient to do so in order to secure the ends of justice, and that that power has been preserved by Section 561-A. There is authority which supports this view but, with great respect, I do not think that the argument is well founded.

( 3 ) SECTION 561-A was introduced into the Code by the! Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) act, 1923, and it provides that

"nothing in this Code be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. "

( 4 ) AT first sight this section commencing as if does with the words "notwithstanding anything in the Code" might be construed as empowering a High Court, irrespective of the provisions of the code, to make such order which it considers necessary to secure one or more of the objectives specified in the section. This view however is erroneous. The section confers no new powers on the Court; it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possessed shall be preserved and was inserted as said by the Privy Council in emperor v. K. Nazir Ahmad, 1945 All LJ 47 : (AIR 1945 PC 18), lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Code or as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam, AIR 1958 SC 376 for the purpose of removing judicial doubts as to whether the High Courts prior to 1923 retained their inherent powers. The inherent powers of the Court are powers which can be exercised by the Court in addition to the specific powers conferred on it by the Code; but they do not authorise the Court to disregard what is provided by the Code either expressly or by necessary implication. There can be no conflict between the specific powers and the inherent powers of the Court, for the latter operate only in the field not covered by the former.

( 5 ) THE scope and nature of the inherent powers of a High Court have recently been summarised by the Supreme Court in AIR 1958 SC 376, Gajendragadkar, J. , delivering the judgment of the court in that case said, at p. 378 :

"it is obvious that this inherent power can be exercised only for either of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the section. This inherent power naturally cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code. It cannot also be invoked if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provision of the Code, It is only if the matter in question is not covered by any specific provisions of the Code that Section 561-A can come into operation, subject further to the requirement that the exercise of such power must serve either of the three purposes mentioned in the said section. . . . . It is only where the High court is satisfied either that an order passed under the Code would be rendered ineffective or that the process of any Court would be abused or that the ends of justice would not be secured that the High Court can and must exercise its inherent power under Section 561-A. "

( 6 ) THE High Court could not therefore in 1945 grant bail in the case of a convicted person who desired to appeal to the Privy Council as the law with regard to bail was covered by Section 426 and Chap XX-XIX of the Code as then in force (see Jairam Das v. Emperor, 1945 All LJ 340 : (AIR 1945 P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document