P. D. Kudal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973 is directed against the judgment of this Court dated January 24, 1979.
(2.) THE accused-petitioner Ram Prakash has been conviced under sections 494/109, IPC and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment, and the accused-petitioner Jagdish Narain has been convicted and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. THE revision petition filed against the said conviction was dismissed on January 24, 1979. THE learned counsel for the accused-petitioners did not appear on that date. Now, it has been contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the order dated January 24, 1979, deserves to be set aside as it was passed without hearing the petitioner. It has been further contended that Shri G. S. Handa, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not be present in the Court due to illness, and that he could not make any arrangement for getting the case adjourred as the case appeared in the daily cause list that very day, and that it was not listed in the weekly cause list which was issued on January 19, 1979. In these circumstances, it is contended that in the interests of justice, the order dated January 24, 1979 should be re-called and that the revision petition should be re-heard and decided on merit. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners have placed reliance on U. J. S. Chopra vs. State of Bombay (1 ). Reliance was also placed on Raj Narain vs. State FB (2), wherein it has been held that the High Court has power to revoke review, re-call or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and re-hear the same only if such a power can be included within its inherent powers which are saved to it in spite of the various provisions of the Code, by section 561-A. Reliance was placed on Dhanna vs. State of Rajasthan (3), wherein it has been held that the inherent power under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. (Old) have to be exercised very sparingly and only when the facts of the case justify the tests laid down in the section itself. They do not authorise the Court to re-hear a case where the appellant of his counsel are not heard on account of their own fault. Where, therefore, the Court is not satisfied that the absence of the counsel at the time the appeal is called for hearing is due to any sufficient cause and the ends of justice require that a hearing should be granted to him. the appeal decided on merits after a perusal of the record of the case will not be altered or reviewed. Reliance was placed on Mulia vs. The State (4) wherein it has been held that the provisions of sec. 561-A control the provisions of sec. 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court is competent to re-hear the appeal after allowing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant or his counsel, even though the jail appeal of the same appellant had been summarily rejected previously. The learrned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973, and has placed reliance on State of Orissa vs. Ram Chander (5),'wherein it has been held that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. It has been further held that the provisions of section 561-A cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the Code.
(3.) RESPECTIVE contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. In State of Orissa vs. Ram Chander (5), it has been held that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. This decision clearly lays down that the judgment of the High Court in appeal or revision cannot be reviewed or revised except in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions of section 561-A of the Code cannot be invoked in exercise of the power which is specifically prohibited by the Code. Section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973 does not bestow greater powers on the Court than the powers which were bestowed by sec. 561-A, Cr. P. C. (Old ). In view of these circumstances, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. . ;