Signed judgment cannot be revisited through a later revision; inadmissible statements must be excluded before reconsideration.

A signed revisional judgment cannot be reopened through a later revision that, in substance, seeks review, because a High Court lacks power to alter an earlier final order absent statutory authority. The later revision was therefore not maintainable. The Supreme Court also declined to interfere under special leave jurisdiction with the order directing exclusion of statements recorded under inducement, threat or promise and remitting the matter for fresh consideration, as the order applied the rule that inadmissible material cannot found charges. The High Court's direction to reconsider the matter after excluding such material was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second revision before the High Court was maintainable when it in substance sought review of an earlier signed order; (ii) Whether the Supreme Court should interfere in special leave jurisdiction with the High Court's order excluding inadmissible statements and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the second revision before the High Court was maintainable when it in substance sought review of an earlier signed order.

Analysis: The earlier revisional order had already been delivered and signed. The later revision, though styled as a fresh challenge to the Special Judge's order, effectively asked the High Court to revisit its own earlier decision. The legal position is that, absent statutory authority, the High Court has no power to review a signed judgment by altering it in substance through a subsequent proceeding.

Conclusion: The second revision was not maintainable as it amounted to an impermissible review of the earlier judgment.

Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court should interfere in special leave jurisdiction with the High Court's order excluding inadmissible statements and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The impugned order, though potentially vulnerable on jurisdictional grounds, gave effect to the governing rule that statements recorded under inducement, threat, or promise and otherwise inadmissible cannot form the basis of charges. The High Court had directed exclusion of the inadmissible portions and a fresh decision by the Special Judge. In the circumstances, interference was not considered justified in the exercise of discretionary special leave jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the High Court's order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained on merits, and the High Court's direction to reconsider the matter after excluding inadmissible material was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed judgment cannot be revisited through a subsequent revision in the guise of review, and discretionary special leave relief may be declined where the impugned order, even if technically questionable, advances the correct legal approach by excluding inadmissible material from consideration.

---