Allahabad High Court
Raghuvera And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990CRILJ2735
ORDER B.P. Singh, J.
1. Criminal Revision No. 400 of 1989 was filed by Raghuvira and four others against the order dated 17-3-89 passed by Sri Jagdish Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing the appeal of the applicants.
2. 14-3-1990 was fixed for admission of the revision application. The case was on the list and when none appeared for the applicants even in the revised list, the revision application was dismissed as not pressed.
3. The contentions of the applicants are that once an application for revision is filed in the court, the same cannot be dismissed for default as not pressed and the order dated 14-3-1990 was bad in law. On the other hand the contentions of the opposite parties are that once the application for revision is dismissed for default as not pressed, the Court has no jurisdiction to recall its earlier order.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is no doubt true that Section 362 Cr. P.C. debars the court from altering or reviewing any final order or judgment given by a court except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. But the question arises whether an order dismissing an application for revision for default of the counsel as not pressed can be termed as a judgment or final order? The term "Judgment" has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code but a judgment means the expression of the opinion of the Court arrived at after due consideration of the entire material on record, including the arguments, if any, advanced at the Bar. A final order or judgment can only be passed in a criminal court when the court applies its mind to the merit of the case. In case the order is passed in a criminal proceeding and the application for revision is dismissed for default as not pressed, the said order cannot be taken as either final order or a judgment. Thus Section 362 Cr. P.C. is no bar to review ore alter the order dated 14th March 1990. The order in question was passed without going into the merit of the case and is without jurisdiction and as such it has to be set aside.
ORDER:
6. The application dated 3-5-90 moved by the revisionist-applicants is allowed. The order dated 14th March, 1990 is set aside. List the case for admission in July, 1990.