TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court became functus officio after disposing of the criminal petition by its earlier final order; (ii) whether the High Court could invoke its inherent powers to modify that final order and transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the disposed of petition.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court became functus officio after disposing of the criminal petition by its earlier final order.
Analysis: A criminal court that has signed and finally disposed of a matter cannot reopen the same proceeding except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The earlier order had finally rejected the prayer to transfer the investigation, and no statutory basis existed to treat the matter as still open. The finality of that order therefore operated to divest the High Court of jurisdiction over the disposed of petition.
Conclusion: The High Court had become functus officio after the earlier final order.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could invoke its inherent powers to modify that final order and transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the disposed of petition.
Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to do what is expressly barred by Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Reconsideration of the same material to reach a different result amounts to review, which is prohibited. Since the modification was sought in the very disposed of petition and not through a fresh proceeding based on subsequent events, the High Court lacked authority to alter the earlier decision and direct transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Conclusion: The High Court could not modify the earlier final order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the transfer direction was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside because the disposed of criminal petition could not be reopened or altered in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, leaving the appellant successful in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to review or alter a final criminal order barred by Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.
TaxTMI 
