Badri Prasad Rastogi vs State of U.P. and Another

V.N. Varma, J.—This is an application on behalf of one Badri Prasad Rastogi for the recall of my order dated 18-5-78 passed in a case u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure came up for hearing before me on 18-5-78. In the cause list of 18-5-78 the name of the applicant''s counsel (Smt. R.D. Gupta) was printed but despite that she did not turn up in Court. I wanted for her and then I took up her case in the revised list. As she was not present I went through the record of the case myself and rejected the application of her client on merits that very day. Now she has filed the present application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the recall of my order dated 18-5-78. According to her, she had sent a letter to her client at Mirzapur on 10-5-78 asking him to come and instruct her in the case and as that letter did not reach him and he could not come to instruct her as directed, she could not appear in Court on 18-5-78 and the case went by default. Even if her client did not come to instruct her there was nothing to prevent her from appearing in Court on the date fixed. Her name appeared in the cause list and she had full notice of the case. The applicant has, therefore, failed to make out any sufficient cause for the non-appearance of his counsel on the date fixed. When his counsel did not appear the Court was left with no option but to take up his case and decide it in accordance with law. That was done and as no substance Was found in the application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure it was rejected on merits. Once the case was dismissed on merits then that was the end of the matter and it cannot now be reopened. Section 362 Cr. P.C. may be seen in this connection. It lays down that unless provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no Court can alter or review its judgment or final order after it has been signed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. No provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law has been shown to me under which this Court has been empowered to alter or review its judgment or final order. So far as Section 482 Cr. P.C. is concerned it merely safeguards the inherent powers possessed by a High Court to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers cannot be related to any of the matters specifically dealt with by the Code. Obviously, therefore, inherent powers cannot be invoked to exercise powers which would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code. Therefore, as the things stand, Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked to nullify the effect of Section 362 Cr. P.C. The present application for review of my order dated 18-5-78 is, therefore, definitely misconceived and consequently it must fail. Accordingly, I reject this application.