Bakhshish Singh etc. vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—A miscellaneous petition u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed on behalf of Bakhshish Singh, Dalip Singh and Narain Singh, accused-petitioners, praying that the compromise between the accused and the injured witness may be taken into consideration and the sentences of the accused petitioners may appropriately be reduced to those already undergone by the accused petitioners This petition was filed on 2nd of April 1979 The accused-petitioners had filed Criminal Appeal No 1163 of 1975 against their conviction under different sections of the Indian Penal Code. The accused petitioners had been awarded different terms of imprisonment The appeal was argued at length and vide my judgment, dated the 23rd February, 197 I had allowed the appeal of Harbhajan Singh and dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of Dalip Singh Narain Singh and Bakhshish Singh the present petitioners, Another petition (Criminal Misc. No. 2729 of 19 9) has been filed by Shri S.K. Sharma, Adv., on behalf of Shingara Singh and Chanan Singh, complainants, u/s 482, read with section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which a prayer has been made that the parties be allowed to compromise the offences this petition is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Shingara Singh. This petition was filed on 24th May, 1979.

Mr. Mann, the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely Bakhshish Singh and others, has argued that even though the appeal on behalf of the petitioners in this miscellaneous petition has been dismissed, still this Court in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code can take into account the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and for that reason the sentence of the accused petitioners be reduced to that already undergone. He has cited before me Ved Prakash v. The State (1969) 71 P.L.R. 43 (S.N.) Lal Singh v. State AIR 1970 P&H. 32. Shamsher v. State of Hryana (1974) 1 C. L.T. 491. The State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan (1977) 4 Cr. L.T. 364. There is no Deed to go into ail these judgments since the matter is now concluded by a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Agarwala and Others, in that case, it has been held that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of is 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. Their Lordships also held that the provisions of section 561 A cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the Code. In view of this decision, there is no power in this Court to, in any manner, vary or alter the judgment.

Consequently, there is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.