- (1.) THIS C.R.A.N being C.R.A.N 302 of 2011 is taken out by Mrityunjoy Prodhan and 3 others praying for recalling the order dated 14.01.2011 and 21.01.2011 used by this Court in C. R. R. 1646 of 1995.
(2.) THE criminal revision being C.R.R 1646 of 1995 was taken up for consideration by this Court on 14.01.2011 in order to dispose of the application once for all in absence of the parties and their respective Counsels. This Court, however, passed the judgment dated 21.01.2011 on merit whereby the order impugned was affirmed and this Court expressed its reluctance to interfere into the order under challenge in revision. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that on 06.12.2010, Mr. Subir Ganguly, learned Advocate for the petitioner appeared in the Court and prayed for adjournment. The prayer was allowed and the matter again appeared in the list after X-mas vacation and on 14.01.2011, this Court passed the following order. "None appears. Matter is pending since 1995 and unfortunately, neither of the parties nor their learned Advocates has shown any interest to proceed with the matter. There is no case of dragging the matter any further. Accordingly, the matter will be decided or merit. Judgment is reserved". On 21.01.2011, this Court disposed of the revisional application by passing the judgment finally. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner and the Counsel to make submission in respect of the revisional application, which according to the Mr. Roy is contrary to natural justice and principles of "fair trial" in the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) MR. Roy submits that when this Court found no one on call on 14.01.2011, one amicus curiae ought to have been appointed who could make submission on behalf of the accused/petitioners. He also submits that in view of provisions under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is not empowered to alter or review its judgment when it was signed disposing of the case. But, he submits, in order to uphold natural justice audi alteram partem, the Court can recall its order in order to enable the accused/petitioners to make out their case through their Counsel or amicus curiae appointed for that purpose by the Court.;