P L D 1958 Azad J (PLP)

NIAZ AHMAD, J.

This is a petition under the provi sions of section 561 (a), Criminal P. C. challenging the legality of my order dated 8th November 1955, quashing Criminal Proceedings against one Mst. Rasool Bibi an accused person in case State v. Kaloo and others, offences under section 364 and 365 etc. A. P. C. pending in the Court of the Revenue Assistant, Magistrate 1st Class, Mirpur. It is prayed that the above order be set aside. An attempt was made to get this petition decided by my Lord the Chief justice. The Chief Justice, however, very properly decided that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with my order and the petition was then put up to me. According to the Law prevailing here, a judgment of a single Judge off this Court sitting as a Revisional Court is a judgment of the High Court and no other judge or Bench of judges of this Court has power to modify such judgment. The Judicial powers of the Chief Justice are not greater than or different from but are exactly the same as those of any other judge of this Court. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was evidence that Mst. Rasool Bibi was guilty of the offences under sections 364, 365 and 314 A. P. C. etc., and that my order quashing Criminal Proceedings is not correct. I am now asked to reconsider my decision. This prayer can not however be granted in view of the provisions of section

369. Criminal P. C. According to this section, no. judgment can be reviewed by a Judge when he has signed the judgment except to correct a clerical error. Mr. Ashai, however, urges that the High Court has inherent powers to make any order that it may think fit to secure the ends of justice and that this power was expressly conferred by section 561 (a) Criminal P. C. He has cited Muhammad Sadiq v. Crown (A I R 1925 Lah. 355) and Mathra Das v. Crown (A I R 1927 Lah.139) in support of his argument. The latter decision has since been overruled while no reference has been made to section 369, Criminal P. C. in Muhammad Sadiq v. Crown. The inten tion of section 369, Criminal P. C. is to debar the High Court from revising its own judgment in criminal matters. The only exception which is permitted is in the case of a clerical error. Once a judgment is signed, the Court becomes functus officio. There is a string of authorities in favour of the view that the High Court does not possess an unrestricted power to make any order which it might please to consider is in the interest of justice and that its inherent powers are controlled by the express provisions of section 369, Criminal P. C. The question has been fully discussed in Raju and another v. Emperor (A I R 1928 Lah. 462), wherein discussing the effect of section 369, the learned judges observed as follows :- It does not confer any new powers, but merely declares that such inherent powers as the Court may possess shall not be deemed to be limited or affected by anything con tained in the Code .There never has been an inherent power in the High Court to alter or review its own judgment in a criminal case once it has been pronounced and signed except in cases where it was passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance without an ad judication on the merits. With this view all the Courts in India are in accord. Mr. Mehtab Singh contends that the introduction of this section has altered the Law and given to the High Court to do something which it could not do before. As I have already pointed out, this is not the case. The instances of inherent powers possessed by the High Court, given in section 561 (a), namely, to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its decision, or to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court, have always been assumed by Court of record. Reference may also be made to A I R 1936 Oudh 219 Dahu Raut and others v. Emperor (A I R 1933 Cal. 870), Edward Few v. Emperor (A I R 1939 Lah. 244), Mst. Wasima v. Emperor (A I R 1935 All. 466). All the High Courts are agreed that the High Court has no power under section 369, Criminal P. C. to review a decision after it had been announced and signed. In section 561 (a) Criminal P. C., there is no definite provision for a review of the judgment. There is no other section in the Code dealing with the right of review and laying down the conditions under which that right could be exercised. A Court of competent jurisdiction may decide a case rightly or wrongly and it is not open to the same judge much less to other judges of co-ordinate juris diction to review that decision. My decision dated 8th November 1955, was given after discussing the whole evidence and it is admitted that I had jurisdiction to quash Criminal Proceedings. If my previous order had been passed without jurisdiction, there was some justification for asking me to reconsider that decision. As the Law does not permit me to review my previous judgment, I dismiss this petition. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.