Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 362 of criminal procedure code in C.Surendhar vs The Director General Of Police on 13 November, 2019Matching Fragments
15. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we find that for a judgment delivered by a Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 353 of the Cr.P.C., finality is attached subject to appeal or revision, wherever is provided under the statute. A judgment delivered under Section 353 of the Cr.P.C. in no way is subject to the inherent powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The limits of corrective jurisdiction to rectify an error in a final judgment are circumscribed by the boundaries set out in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. itself. The phrase “otherwise to secure the ends of justice” has to be read ejusdem generis in terms of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and not to upturn, explain, dilute or in any way modify a final judgment delivered by a Court of competent jurisdiction – whether of conviction or acquittal. The same may be subject to correction, appeal or revision as per the Code, but the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in a way so as to read it in order to do substantial justice between the parties as is available to the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. __________ http://www.judis.nic.in
'27. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles __________ http://www.judis.nic.in of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault. (Vide: Chitawan and Ors. v. Mahboob Ilahi MANU/UP/0178/1968 : 1970 Cri.L.J. 378;
State of U.P. and Anr. MANU/SC/0147/2011 :
AIR 2011 SC 1232).'” 19.2. In M/s.BMD Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), other decisions were also relied on and an argument was also advanced by the opposite side that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
cannot be exercised to do something expressly barred under the Criminal Procedure Code, referring to Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Single Judge, after traversing the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that there was no material on record to show that the accused had been served notice in the appeals and, therefore, proceeded to apply the audi alteram partem rule for recall of the judgment.
__________ http://www.judis.nic.in
22. The next case at hand is another decision by a Division Bench in the case of Emperor v. Juman Sajan Otho, reported in AIR 1947 Sind 66, where certain observations in a judgment were sought to be expunged relying on an earlier judgment, referred to above. The Court refused to exercise the inherent power.
23. The Apex Court in the case of State, rep. By DSP, SBCID, Chennai v. K.V.Rajendran and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 673, applying the principles of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., clearly held that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to alter a judgment. It further went on to hold in paragraph (18) as follows: