- (1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Both these revisions were decided ex parte after hearing learned AGA. Applications have been moved for recall of the exparte judgment and for affording opportunity of argument.
(2.) HEARD Shri A. B. L. Gaur, learned Sr. Counsel for revisionist Inder Deo Maheshwari and Shri G. C. Saxena, learned counsel for Ramesh and learned AGA and have gone through the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that due to illness or mistake of the learned counsels, argument could not be advanced. Hence, if the revision is not heard on merits, the revisionist will have to serve-out the sentence passed under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the prayer has been made for recall of the order. Learned AGA has submitted that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for recall of the order. Therefore, application moved by the revisionist deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) SRI G. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it is submitted that this Court has power to recall orders in order to prevent injustice to the accused revisionist. In AIR 1959 Alld 315, Raj Narain v. State, it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court that the High Court has power to review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and rehear the same. This can be done only in cases following under one or other of the three conditions mentioned in Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code : (i) for the purposes of giving effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) for the purposes of preventing abuse of the process of any Court. (iii) for otherwise securing the ends of justice.;