Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 362 of criminal procedure code in Perumal P.S.L. vs K. Baliah on 6 February, 2004Matching Fragments
1. This petition relates to the maintainability of the review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner in the above revisions. Since the office felt that no review petition lies against the judgment rendered by the High Court in the High Court itself, the matter has been posted for maintainability.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A. Thiagarajan, argued in-extenso and submitted that this Court has power to set aside its own order, if the respective parties were able to show that the order is palpably wrong or that it should be amended in the interest of justice. To substantiate the above said argument the-learned counsel has referred to Section 362, Cr.P.C which reads as follows:
4. Finally, the learned counsel argued that Section 482, Cr.P.C has a over-riding effect of Section 362, Cr.P.C and that if the Court comes to a conclusion that its earlier order is wrong or based on erroneous consideration, it can certainly invoke the extra ordinary powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C and rectify the order. According, to him, the orders passed in the aforesaid revisions are to be corrected since this Court has and overlooked the salient features of Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act; failed to note the distinction between the sentence and fine under criminal jurisprudence of punishment; to understand the vital distinction between the punishment under pure criminal law and extent of fine to be imposed under the Negotiable Instruments Act for covering the compensation payable to the complainant among other grounds.
8. However, a reading of Section 362, Cr.P.C in my opinion would prevail over Section 482, Cr.P.C and Section 362, Cr.P.C is a specific Section which bars or prohibits the Courts from altering or correcting its own judgment except for correcting the typographical errors. When this specific provision prohibits the Court to do an act, it cannot circumvented by the aid of another provision under the Code and supersede the provision made in the concerned Section and pass an order. It is settled principle of law that the specific provision overrides the genera provision. Further the Supreme Court in a case Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 43, has clearly held as follows: