1976 (8) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Judge that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and that the illegality was not brought to the notice of the Court when the revision petition was argued on 11-5-1976, The learned Judge thereupon cancelled the order dated 11-5-1976 dismissing the revision petition, and directed by his order dated 8-6-1976 that the revision case be admitted on the court's file and that the case should be posted for final hearing after due notice to the Public Prosecutor. The revision case came up for hearing before our learned brother Muktadar, J. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor before Muktadar, J. that the order dated 8-6-1976 reviewing the dismissal order dated 11-5-11976 is without jurisdiction and that the revision p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icates that alteration or review by a High Court would be permissible as in case of other courts where provision therefore is made in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force. The words "or final order" have been introduced in the new Section to make it clear that the Section is applicable not only to judgments but also to final orders, Even without these words in the corresponding old Section, the principle of the Section was applied by the Courts to final orders also. Another addition in the new Section is of the words 'or arithmetical.' These words are added in the new Section to clarify that errors in the judgment or final order arising by erroneous arithmetical calculations may also be subsequently corrected by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e High Court after fully hearing the parties, the principle of equity and justice will demand that no other petition on the same matter should be entertained." In Public Prosecutor v. Devireddi AIR 1962 A P 479 : 1962 2 Cri LJ 727 a Full Bench of this Court held that "there is no such inherent power in the High Court under Section 561-A to alter or review its own judgment once it has been pronounced except in cases where it was passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance, i.e. without affording an opportunity to the accused to appear." In Rangaswami v. Narayanan AIR 1966 Mad 163 it was pointed out that "Section 561-A Crl. P.C. does not in any way enlarge the powers conferred under the Code especially when it is provided in the C....