Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 39A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 304 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Swarth Mahto And Anr. vs Dharmdeo Narain Singh on 31 January, 1972
Carrying further this view expressed by the Supreme Court in Swarth Mahto's case (supra), the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court considered in what conditions the powers under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. A mention has been made to Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as well as to Article 39A of our Constitution. Articles 21 and 22 guarantees fundamental rights to a citizen in respect of the criminal trials and conviction and his right to defend himself. Article 21 deals with right to live and Article 22 deals with the right of the accused to get defended by an advocate of his choice. Article 39A of our Constitution makes it obligatory to provide a legal aid to the accused who is unable to engaged a lawyer for his defence at the cost of the State. Therefore, as a natural corollary, the accused is entitled to be heard before any order is passed against him. But that does not give a licence or a free right to a litigant or his advocate to absent himself as per his convenience either for some other oblique purpose or for avoiding a Bench. There is inherent duty on such litigant or the lawyer to get himself informed about the date and time when his lis is likely to be heard by the Court. A litigant nor the lawyer has right to recall the course of the business to be transacted in the Court in view of the cause list or daily board. He has to remain present in the Court whenever his matter is reasonably likely to be taken for hearing. In this context, the allegation made by Shri Ansari against Shri Konde Deshmukh has to be viewed and this Court would be expressing its opinion about it later on after considering the powers put forth by provisions of Section 362 of the Code. Section 362 of the Code provides that "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order deposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." While dealing with this provision of law, two categories will have to be marked (1) the category of the judgments which are dictated may be in open Court but not signed and second the judgments which may be dictated in open court and are signed after correcting typing or clerical mistakes. In some courts judgments are reserved. In some courts judgments are dictated in open court. The judgments cannot be said to attain the finality unless they are checked, typing mistakes or clerical mistakes are corrected and thereafter signed as endorsement of finality to it. In between, the Court should adopt openmindedness for getting assistance of the advocates of both the sides because its human to (SIC) and none can say to be perfect in his act or in his life style. Broad minded approach is the indicator of civilised society and democratic approach which has been upheld by all societies of this generation, this century and the decade. On many occasions it so happens that in the course of dictation the lawyers do not find it proper to obstruct the flow of the dictation and they choose to keep silent till the judgment is dictated completely. Thereafter they in a proper, polite, well mannered way point out the things remained to be considered or point out the mistakes in context with the facts and circumstances of the case. As the experience tells and the practice prevalent, such mistakes are corrected there and there only. But even then some mistakes do occur in the dictated judgment when the steno types them. The broad mindedness should permit the Advocates to make a submission in respect of factual aspects and other aspects also, but, before the judgment is signed. Because a person is susceptible to error of forgetfulness or is susceptible to the error of loss of memory temporarily. He may or may not remember a thing to be mentioned at that time only but may remember it a day after or two days thereafter. It could not be democratic, proper to shut the doors for such corrections because after all the Courts are meant for doing the justice and the justice has to be done to the fullest sense and in its real spirit. Justice is not only to be done but it is shown to have been done and the litigants as well as advocates should also have the right of participation in the process because the litigants are the soul of the litigation and the advocates are officers of the Court. The total efforts put by all of them conjointly achieves the last goal of administration of justice in its true spirit and fullest sense.
Habu vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1986
3. Shri Ansari, Counsel appearing for the applicant, placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court Full Bench in the matter of Habu v. State of Rajasthan , wherein the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that there are distinct difference between High Courts power to recall its order than the power of altering or reviewing the judgment. The powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Code" for convenience) can be and should be exercised by the High Court for recalling the judgment in case the hearing is not given to the accused and the case falls within one of the three conditions laid down under Section 482.