- (1.) The grievance expressed by the petitioner Dr. Padam Kumar Jain, a Judicial Officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, over the caustic and severe censure made against him by a single Judge (Hon'ble Y. R. Meena J.) of this Court in an order dated August 29, 1996 in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 125/1996 (defect). The petitioner moved this Court by way of a petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. to have those disparaging remarks expunged but instead of getting them erased the learned Judge on June 9, 1997 disposed of the petition thus - "I deem it proper that remarks passed in my order in case S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 125/96 and the remarks communicated to petitioner by the District Judge, Tonk should not come in the way of the service career of petitioner. It is therefore, ordered that the observations made by me in order dated 29-8-96 and also the remarks communicated by the District Judge, Tonk vide letter dated 14-3-97 shall not affect the service career of the petitioner."
(2.) The petitioner on July 14, 1997, submitted another application u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking modification of order dated June 9, 1997. It was prayed by the petitioner that observations in para 7 of the judgment dated August 29, 1996 be expunged. The application was placed before Hon'ble Y.R. Meena J. but it could not be heard. Since Hon'ble Y. R. Meena J. has been transferred to the High Court of Judicature for Calcutta, the application has come up before me for adjudication.
(3.) It is universal principle of law that, when a matter has been finally disposed of by a Court, the Court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside. Section 362, Cr. P.C. provides thus : "Save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or authentical error." Section 362, Cr. P.C. applies to all Courts including High Court. But Full Bench of this Court in Habu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83 (at page 106) propounded that power of the recall is different than the power of altering or reviewing the judgment and powers u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. can be and should be exercised by the High Court for recalling the judgment in case the hearing is not given to the accused and the case falls within one of the three conditions laid down under S. 482, Cr. P.C. ;