Back
1971 Supreme(All) 80
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A.L. Bahri, D.S. Mathur, J.M.L. Sinha, K.N. Singh, M.H. Be, J.
MAHESH
VERSUS
STATE
Cr. Misc. Applications No. 2614 connected with Nos. 2615, 2856, 2857 of 1969,
Decided On : March 2, 1971
Headnote:
The High Court has the power to review, revise or reconsider its judgment or order duly pronounced in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, only in exceptional circumstances and for one of the three purposes mentioned in Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons were convicted of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment. They filed appeals against their conviction and sentence. The appeals were dismissed by the High Court. The accused persons then filed applications for review of the appellate order of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court referred the question of its power to review its earlier decision to a larger bench.
Finding of the Court:
The larger bench of the High Court held that the High Court has the power to review, revise or reconsider its judgment or order duly pronounced in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, only in exceptional circumstances and for one of the three purposes mentioned in Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues: Whether the High Court has the power to review, revise or reconsider its judgment or order duly pronounced in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's power to review, revise or reconsider its judgment or order is not a general power. It is a limited power that can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and for one of the three purposes mentioned in Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These purposes are: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, and (iii) to secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the applications for review of the appellate order.
Mathur, J. :- For himself and on behalf of Kirty, Sinha and Singh, JJ.
1. The correctness of the Full Bench decision in Raj Narain v. The State, (AIR 1959 All 315) (FB), and the Division Bench decision in Sadhu Singh v. State, (AIR 1962 All 193) has been referred to this Bench for consideration. In all the four cases an application for bail was also moved and these application have also been referred to this Bench for orders.
2. The material facts of the case are that Mahesh and Madan, applicants, were tried along with others in three robbery cases - two at Bulandshahr and the third at Meerut. The defence of Mahesh in all the three cases was that he was arrested by the police on July 2, 1966, and not on July 3, 1966. The two cases of Bulandshahr were tried first and the Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence plea and convicted both Mahesh and Madan. Appeals against their conviction were dismissed by Lokur, J. The Sessions Judge trying the case at Meerut, however, accepted the defence plea and acquitted the applicants. The state did not prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal.
3. Mahesh had engaged two Advocates, Sri T. Rathore and Sri P. M. Gupta; but it is said that Sri P. M. Gupta was not authorized to argue the two Criminal Appeals. It is further said that a certified copy of the judgment in the Merut case was handed over to Sri T. Rathore for being filed at the time of the hearing of the appeals, but he did not bring this judgment to the notice of the High Court, nor did he appear and argue for him (Mahesh) at the time of the hearing of the two Criminal Appeals.
4. It was after the dismissal of the Criminal Appeals that Mahesh moved the present applications for the re-hearing of the appeals after admitting additional evidence in respect of the telegram which the father of Mahesh, had sent on July 3, 1966, alleging that Mahesh had been arrested the previous day. Madan also moved similar applications relying upon the acquittal of Mahesh in the Meerut case. Both of them also applied for bail pending the decision of the applications.
5. At the time of the hearing of the applications the learned Advocate for Mahesh withdrew the allegations made against the two Advocates. In the circumstances, the only question for consideration was whether additional evidence could be admitted and the judgments in the appeals reviewed in the light of the additional evidence. In view of the assumed conflict in the majority decision in Raj Narain's case, AIR 1959 All 315 (FB), and the decision in Sadhu Singh's AIR 1962 All 193 and also in view of certain observations of the Supreme Court in the cases referred to by Lokur, J. in his referring order, he directed that the papers shall be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench to consider the correctness or otherwise in the two decisions of this Court.
6. The matter was then referred to a Bench consisting of Khare and Sinha JJ., who expressed the opinion that this matter be considered by a Full Bench of more than three Judges. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice thereupon referred the matter, namely, the correctness of the decisions in the cases of Raj Narain, AIR 1959 All 315 (FB) and Sadhu Singh, AIR 1962 All 193 to this Bench.
7. The Full Bench case arose out of the decision of a Criminal Revision by the High Court, while Sadhu Singh's of a Criminal Appeal. We have, therefore, to express our opinion in respect of both Criminal Appeals and Criminal Revisions.
8. Even though the correctness of the two decisions has been referred to this Bench, it shall be proper to formulate the material a questions is issue to avoid having to express an opinion on all the observations made in the two cases and on each and every point decided or commented upon therein. The three questions involved in both the cases are :-
(1) Whether the High Court is possessed of the power to review, revise or re-consider the judgment or order duly pronounced in Criminal Appeals and Crimina
