MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant appeal has come up for consideration of this Court in a very peculiar set of circumstances. The accused appellants herein and another set of accused namely Kishna Ram S/o Abbaji, Babulal S/o Kumbhaji, Karna Ram S/o Khinyaji and Dhuda Ram S/o Kumbhaji (since acquitted) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Cases No.11/1987 and 15/1987 who, decided both the cases together by the Judgment dated 20.01.1988 and whilst, extending the benefit of doubt to the second set of accused viz. Kishna Ram S/o Abbaji, Babulal, Karna Ram and Dhuda Ram (Sessions Case No.15/1987), they were acquitted of the charges whereas, the accused appellants Hari Ram, Kishna and Mala Ram were convicted and sentenced as below: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section Life Imprisonment Rs.100/ One Month's 302/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment
(2.) The convicted accused preferred an Appeal No.130/1988 in this Court under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. for assailing their conviction and the sentence awarded to them by the learned trial court whereas the State of Rajasthan approached this Court by filing Appeal No.266/1988 for challenging the acquittal of the accused Kishna, Babulal, Karna Ram, and Dhuda Ram recorded by the trial court by the very same judgment. Both the appeals were admitted way back in the year 1988 and the sentences awarded to the convicted accused were suspended.
(3.) The matters were listed on 02.01.2017, however, unfortunately, when the appeals were called out for hearing, the defence counsel appointed in the cases did not appear to argue the matters. Nevertheless, the Coordinate Bench of this Court before which, the case was listed, thought it fit to proceed with hearing of the appeals without; either notifying the accused or appointing any amicus curiae to represent them in both the matters. Accordingly, both the appeals were heard by this Court in absentia of defence counsel and were decided on the same day vide judgment dated 02.01.2017. The Court went on to dismiss both the appeals i.e. the appeal against conviction as well as the appeal against acquittal. As a consequence of the appeal No.130/1988 (against conviction) being dismissed, the convicted accused Hari Ram, Kishna son of Uda Ram and Mala Ram were taken into custody. They preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for assailing their conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by this Court vide Judgments dated 20.01.1988 and 02.01.2017 respectively. The petition came to be registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.481/2018. The matter was disposed of by Hon'ble the Supreme Court by order dated 09.02.2018 which is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:- "Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard. Since it is stated that the High Court did not have the assistance of any amicus, we permit the petitioner to move the High Court upon which the High Court may consider the matter on merits. The special leave petition is disposed of with the above observation. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of." In pursuance of this order, the accused appointed counsel Shri Pradeep Shah to represent them and the appeal No.130/1988 came to be listed by the registry in the hearing category. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to mention that the State of Rajasthan did not challenge the acquittal of the accused Kishna, Babulal, Karna Ram, and Dhuda Ram recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 02.01.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.266/1988 and thus, the acquittal of these accused has attained finality. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant appeal and so also, about the jurisdiction of this Court to reconsider/ rehear the case on merits. He fervently urged that Hon'ble the Supreme Court, whilst deciding the Special Leave to Appeal, has not set aside the judgment dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer jurisdiction upon a criminal court to review its own Judgment and therefore, the appeal No.130/1988 ought not to have been restored to its original number and that this Court has no option but to reaffirm the judgment dated 02.01.2017 by formally marking the appearance of the defence counsel. ;