ATAL BIHARI SINGH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND LAKHANDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a report of the Dehri police, dated the 11th November, 1962, a proceeding under Sec. 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, was started against the petitioners as well as against opposite party no. 2 and others and numbered as Case No. 24M and 25M of 1962, respectively. The proceedings continued from 1962 onwards up to 1968 when by order dated the 14th August, 1968, both the proceedings were dropped. The order dropping the proceeding in Case No. 24M (against the petitioners) ran as follows:

(2.) In support of the application, two points have been raised on behalf of the petitioners: (1) that as by order dated 14.8.68, the 107 Proceeding did come to a close, it was final order and could not be reviewed by the Magistrate and (2) that in any view of the matter the proceeding could not be revived for prosecuting the petitioners as it violated the spirit of Sec. 479A, Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the opposite party, the order dated the 14th August, 1968, was not a judgment as it did not come under Sub -section (6) of Sec. 367, Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the order dated 14th August, 1968 discharging the opposite party cannot be regarded as a judgment and the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to review the same.

(3.) For the purposes of this case, I would proceed on the assumption that the order dated the 14th August, 1968, by which the proceeding against the opposite party was dropped was not a judgment but even if so, as it terminated the 107 Proceeding pending against the opposite party, it has to be classified as a final order and the learned Magistrate could not review the same. Unlike the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Procedure Code does not contain any provision for review of the orders passed by the Magistrate. As a general provision of law it has been held times without number that a Magistrate cannot review or alter an order once passed by him, vide (1) T. Narasinga Rao V. Vittcba Rai ( : A.I.R. 1916 Mad 1220 (1). In (2) re Hari Lal Buch (I.L.R. 22 Bom 949 and (3) Parbati Charan Roy V. Sajjad Ahma 1 Choudhury (I.L.R. 35 Cal 350); but some decisions have taken the view that if the order is of an interlocutory nature and not final, a Magistrate can recall the same. The consistent view, however, is that if the order is final it cannot be reviewed or recalled. The words "final order" have not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but its meaning is not settled by a large number of decisions on the point.