1987 P Cr (PLP)

Ghulam Dastagir in the present review petition had filed a complaint on 7‑7‑1982 under section 323, P.P.C. against Niazi and others in the Court of Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate 1st Class, Quetta. As the area, where the offence had taken place, was governed under the provisions of Ordinance II of 1968 the aforesaid Magistrate constituted a tribunal. The complainant neither appeared before the tribunal nor produced any evidence whereupon on the recommendations of the tribunal the aforesaid Magistrate by order, dated 10‑2‑1983 acquitted Niazi and others and dismissed the complaint. However, on 4‑10‑1983, about eight months after the acquittal of Niazi and others. Ghulam Dastigir again filed a complaint against Niazi and others under section 323/420/406, P.P.C. in the same Court wherein the alleged that on the previous occasion Niazi and others had compounded the offence with him by payment of Rs.800 but two days thereafter they received back the amount and hence they were liable to be prosecuted. The second complaint was also dismissed by the learned Magistrate and Niazi and others were acquitted vide order, dated 22‑6‑1986. Ghulam Dastigir challenged that order by way of revision petition under section 435/439‑A, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge I, Quetta which was accepted vide order, dated 2‑2‑1987. Niazi and others had moved a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings in this Court which was accepted by me by judgment, dated 17‑3‑1987 and the proceedings pending against them in the Court of the Magistrate were quashed.

2. As Ghulam Dastigir had remained absent on the date when the aforesaid petition was disposed of by this Court, he filed the review petition on 19‑3‑1987 with the prayer to recall the order, dated 17th March, 1987 made under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I asked the learned counsel for Ghulam Dastigir, who is respondent No. 1 in the present review petition, as under what law this petition had been moved by him. He in reply relied upon the provisions of section 369, Cr.P.C. The minute perusal of the provisions of this section will show that save as otherwise provided by the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force, or in the case of a High Court by the letters Patent of such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical mistake. It shall thus be seen that a judgment when it has been announced and signed cannot be altered except to correct a clerical mistake.

4. The powers of appellate Court in disposal of appeal are specified in section 423, Cr:P.C. and it nowhere lays down that once a Court has announced its judgment it cannot review the same under section 369, Cr.P.C. except to correct a clerical mistake. It is clear from the provisions of section 369 and section 424, Cr.P.C. that once a judgment or an order in the nature of a judgment is dated and signed it cannot be reviewed because the effect of section 424 read with section 369, Cr.P.C. is that the Court becomes functus officio after pronouncement of judgment and it has no powers to revise or review its previous order and if it does so the subsequent order is clearly ultra vires, therefore, illegal.

5. It is also noteworthy that there have never been any inherent powers in the High Court to alter or review its own judgment once it has been pronounced or signed except in cases where it was passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance without adjudication on merits. However, it shall be seen that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. to the, effect that the order impugned in this petition could be reviewed especially when it was passed after adjudication on merit.

6. The gravemen of the above discussion is that there is no power of review except to correct a clerical mistake under section 369, Cr.P.C. once a judgment has been announced by a competent Court in a criminal case. Similarly there is no provision in section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. or any case‑law on the subject in support of the learned counsel for the petition of the review petition that the impugned judgment passed by me on 17‑3‑1987 could be reviewed. For the aforesaid reasons the review petition is incompetent and without jurisdiction and is dismissed as such. M.A.K/265/Q Petition dismissed.