STATE OF ORISSA versus RAM CHANDER AGARWALA ETC.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1114 · Decided: 05-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1114 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
RAM CHANDER AGARWALA ETC. 
October 5, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J 
Criminal Procedure Code 1898-Section 561-A-lnherent powers-Criminal 
Procedure Code 1914, Sec. 362, 482-Whether lligh Court can revie11• its Judg-
ment delivered ir. a reference or revision application. 
The respondents were convicted under Section 20 of the ForY..'ard Contracts '--,{ 
(Regulation) Act, 1952. The District Magistrate found the firms and persons r 
in management of business guilty of the offences with which they were charged 
and inflicted a consolidated fine of Rs. 2000 /- with the direction that they 
would suffer simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of 
fine. 
Against their conviction and sentence the accused preferred an appeal to 
the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeals found 
that the law required imposition of a minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-
for each offence and as the sentence passed by the Trial Court was not in 
accordance with the law, he referred the matter to the High Court for passing 
an appropriat.e sentence. The accused also preferred revision petition against 
the order of the Sessions Judge, 
Both the proceedings were hea.rd together 
The I-ligh Court dismissed the revision petition preferred by the accused and 
accepted the reference by the Sessions Judge and enhanced the sentence so far 
as the firms are concerned, to a sum of Rs. 3,900 /-· As regards the Managers 
or the Managing partners the High Court sentenced them to six months rigoroUs 
imprisonment. The Managers or Managing Partners filed miscellaneous petitions 
before the High Court for review of its order. The High Court accepted the 
petition for review and reca1led its previous judgment imposing sentence of six 
months' rigorous imprisonment on the petitioners and instead imposed a fine 
of Rs. 3900 ;-. The High Court came to the conclusion that no con1prehensive_ 
notice was given to the accused to show caiuse why sentenr.e of tine should 
not have been enhanced to the sentence of substantive imprisonment and that 
the notice \vas only to show cause why the fine should not be incresaed. 
The State of Orissa filed an appeal by certificate in this Court. 
TI1e appellants contended : 
( l) The Ifigh Court had no jurisdiction to review its ;J.Wn judgment. 
... 
"' 
(2) The High Court erred in holding thait proper notice was not issued. 
(3) The notice issued to the accused was clear and ·wide enough to include 
the imposition of substantive sentence of imprisonment. 
~ 
The respondent contended : 
1. The Iligh Court has ample jurisdiction under 5ection 561(/\) and other 
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to review ils own judgment. 
H 
2. Section 369. of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to judgments 
on appeal passed by the High Court much less to the judgment of the High 
Court passed in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, under section 439. 
.. 
• 
.• 
ORISSA v. R. c. AGARWALA (Kailasam, !.) 
1115 
Allowing the appeal the Court, 
HELD: (I) Section 369 as enacted in 1898 provided that no Court othet 
than High Court, \\''hen it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same 
except as provided in Section 395 and 484 or to correct a clerical error. Th< 
section was redrafted in 1921 which gave power to the High Court to review 
its judgment only if it is provided by the code or by any other la'v for the 
A 
time being in force. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1974 aJso 
B 
provides : 
/ 
"that save as otherwise provided by the Code or by aony other law no court, 
when it has signed its judgment or fina•l order disposing of a case shall alter 
or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." [1119 A-EJ 
(2) The Letters Patent of the High Court at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras 
C 
provjde that the High Court shall have full power to revie\v a case if such point 
or points of law are reserved under clause 25 or on -it being certified by the 
Advocate General that there is an error and the points should be further consi-
dered. 
No other provisions relating to the power of review of the considerao-
tion of the High Court was brought to the notice of the Court. [1120 A-CJ 
(3) The provisions of Sec. 424 which make the procedure of the Court of 
Original Jurisdiction applicable to the Appellate Court cannot confer the power 
of review. [1127 CJ 
(i) The inherent power of the Hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.