C. Lakshmana Iyer vs Pubbi Setti Sethamma and Another

P. Kunhamed Kutti, J.—This is a Petition filed by the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 1506 of 1962 on the file of this Court, under Sections 439

and 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the Court, u/s 439 and 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for restoration to file of the said

Crl. R.C. No. 1506 of 1962 dismissed by me on 12th November, 1963

That was Revision Case filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Third Presidency, Magistrate; Saidapet, discharging the accused

in a complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 352, 448, 457, 427, 380, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate

examined in the case six witnesses and marked eight documents on the side of the petitioner and two documents on the side of the accused and

came to the conclusion that sufficient material had not been furnished before him to justify a charge in respect of any of the offences against the

accused. Against that order, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition in this Court.

The case was on the list for some days, and when it came up for hearing, the petitioner was absent and had no Counsel to represent him. In the

circumstances. I looked into the papers and disposed of the case on merits holding that there was no justification to interfere with the order of

discharge passed by the learned Magistrate.

Since the disposal was on merits, there is no reason to set it aside on the ground it was an ex pare disposal. This view has been consistently held

by this Court in. Ranga Row v. Emperor 1912 Cri. L.J. 710, and in Subramania Kandar Vs. Ramaswami Kandar, . In the last mentioned case

Govinda Menon, J., held that a Revision dismissed for default of appearance could not be restored to file In Anthony Doss, In re (1963)

M.L.J.249, Sadasivam, J., had to consider a similar cases, where a Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed on. merits, when the petitioner and

his Advocate were absent at the hearing. The learned Judge held that the petition could not be restored nor could the order be reviewed. He also

observed that the High Court had no inherent power to alter or review its own judgment in a Criminal Case once it had been pronounced and

signed. In the circumstances, it seems to me that there is no justification to set aside the order passed by me on merits in this case.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.