GARG, J. - (1.) THIS misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner-Garib Ram (hereinafter referred to as added accused petitioner) for recalling the order dated 16. 1. 2002 passed by this Court in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000 by which after allowing the application dated 30. 3. 2000 filed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. on behalf of the prosecution, added accused petitioner was ordered to face trial for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 (or 302), 326/149 (or 326), 325/149, 323/149 and 307/149 IPC alongwith other accused persons and added accused petitioner was summoned through bailable warrant of Rs. 10,000/ -.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the added accused petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The main grievance of the added accused petitioner is that the judgment, which was delivered by this Court on 16. 1. 2002 in State vs. Mangilal and Ors. (1), was passed in his absence as no notice of that revision petition was served on him. In the office report dated 21. 10. 2000 in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000, there is a clear cut mention of the fact that notices of non-petitioners No. 1 to 5 and 8 received duly served and in that revision petition, added accused petitioner is shown as non-petitioner No. 8. On the basis of that office report, this Court proceeded further and heard the Public Prosecutor in absence of his counsel. During the course of argument, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the added accused petitioner that notice which was served on him was that of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000 and not that of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000 and the copy of the notice which was served on him is Annex. 1. From perusing the notice (Annex. 1), it further appears that he was required to appear in this Court on 21. 08. 2000 either personally or through his counsel in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000. He further submits that in pursuance of the said notice (Annex. 1), he filed power of his counsel Shri Sandeep Mehta on 17. 10. 2000 mentioning therein S. B. Criminal Revision No. 283/2000 and since S. B. Criminal Revision No. 283/2000 was already decided on 25. 7. 2000, therefore, the said power remained in the office without tagging with any of the file. Thus, it is submitted that because of the above facts, nobody appeared on behalf of the added accused petitioner in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000 and, therefore, the arguments in that revision petition were heard in his absence on 9. 1. 2002. In the above facts and circumstances, it was prayed by the added accused petitioner that the judgment dated 16. 1. 2002 passed by this Court in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000 may be recalled and that revision petition may be restored to its original number and the same may be ordered to be decided afresh after hearing the added accused petitioner.
(3.) SO far as the factual position is concerned, the same is not controverted on the following facts :- (1) That in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000, there was a report by the office that added accused petitioner was served with the notice, but actually he was not served with the notice of that revision petition and he was actually served with the notice of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000. (2) That this Court proceeded further taking into consideration that the added accused petitioner was served with the notice of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000. (3) That added accused petitioner was actually served with the notice S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000 and for giving appearance in that revision petition, a Vakalatnama was filed on his behalf on 17. 10. 2000. (4) That since S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000 was decided earlier on 25. 7. 2000, therefore, that Vakalatnama was not tagged with any file. (5) That the conclusion of the above discussion is that actually added accused petitioner was not served with the notice of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000 in which the judgment dated 16. 1. 2002 was passed. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the judgment, which is given in absence of any person or his counsel but the case was decided on merits, can be recalled by the court in its inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. ? The above question stands answered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Habu vs. The State of Rajasthan In that case, the following question was formulated and referred to by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the Full Bench for answer :- " Whether the judgment given in absence of the appellant or his counsel but the case decided on merits, can be recalled by the court in its inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. " ;