JUDGMENT :

M. Laxman, J.

1. These revisions were previously heard and disposed of by Sri Justice P. Keshava Rao (expired) by mere endorsement of result on the docket proceedings. In effect, there were no detailed reasoned orders. Therefore, they are specially posted before this Court, as per the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide orders dated 01.12.2021, for passing necessary orders.

2. The facts leading to placing the present revisions before this Court are that the said learned single Judge had passed separate mere docket orders either allowing or dismissing the revisions postponing the reasoned orders. Unfortunately, before reasoned orders are passed in all the revisions in support of his conclusions for the final decision, the said Judge died. In effect, these revisions are not containing any reasons for his conclusions with regard to final result of the cases and the mere docket proceedings are available pronouncing the result portion of the cases either allowing or dismissing the cases. Under these circumstances, all these revisions are placed before me.

3. This Court heard the counsel for the revision petitioners, the Public Prosecutor and other counsel representing unofficial respondents on the question whether cryptic orders i.e., endorsements of result on docket proceedings either dismissing or allowing the revisions postponing reasons and thereafter no reasoned orders were passed since said Judge died, suffer from nullity. If such orders suffer from nullity, whether this Court is having jurisdiction to either review or recall such orders.

4. The contentions from the counsel representing the revision petitioners are that though the orders were pronounced by the said learned single Judge without any reasons, they are valid in law. Even if such orders are not valid orders as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Code) since such orders do not contain the contents of the judgment/final orders as required under law, such orders cannot be either reviewed or recalled since this Court has no power of review. Such powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot also be exercised in the light of the specific bar contained under the Code i.e., Section 362 of the Code with regard to alteration, recall or modification of the judgment or final order passed by the criminal Court.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the docket orders, which were passed in all these criminal revisions either simply allowing or dismissing, are not the judgments or final orders, as per the provisions of the Code. According to him, the final orders or judgments shall consist of points for determination, the decision on the points and the reasons for such decision. The said necessary ingredients are lacking in the present cases. Therefore, such orders pronouncing the final result of the cases are not final orders or judgments in terms of the settled principles of law with regard to contents of final orders or judgments. According to him, such orders are nullity on account of unaccompanied reasons and violation of due process of law. Therefore, once the orders are nullity, this Court has power either to review or recall such orders which violate the basic principles of due process of law.

6. It is also his contention that when there is gross procedural violation which makes the orders nullity, and when such orders are to be recalled not on merits, this Court can exercise the power of recall or review irrespective of the prohibition contained under Section 362 of the Code. He further contended that every Court has inherent power to recall the orders which are nullity and such orders are result of procedural lapses. Therefore, he finally contended that inherent power can be exercised by this Court to review or recall the orders passed in the present revision cases.

7. In the light of the said contentions, this Court has to see whether the orders which are passed by docket proceedings constitute valid Unal ord