Manga Singh vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 1952M and 1954M of 1985, because they raise common questions of fact and law and are directed against the same judgment.

Manga Singh, Harpal Singh, accused petitioners, along with their coaccused Tarlok Singh, Dalip Singh, and Baldev Singh were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, under sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149, Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that they all on 28th November, 1983, while variously armed with deadly weapons, attacked Gurnam Singh and Nishan Singh, as a result of which Gurnam Singh died and Nishan Singh was seriously injured.

At the time of examination of the accused under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, Manga Singh, accused petitioner, had given his age as 15 years whereas Harpal Singh gave his age 16 years. However during the trial it was not agitated that the two accusedpetitioners were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of East Punjab Children Act, 1949 (for short `the Act'').

We have pursued the judgment of the learned trial Court. This point was not agitated before the trial Court. The accused petitioners along with their coaccused were convicted under sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148, Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ each under section 302/149, Indian Penal Code. They were awarded other sentences also, the details of which are not relevant for the decision of these applications. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned trial Court, the petitioners and their coconvicts filed Criminal Appeal No. 308 DB of 1984, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 9th January, 1985. The petitioners were represented by the counsel S. Dara Singh, Advocate. In this Court also, it was not pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that at the time of the commission of the offence, they were below the age of 16 years and were children, as envisaged by the Act and that the case of the petitioners be referred to the State Government under section 34 of the Act and they should not have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. So, this point was not deemed by this Court.

The petitioners have through these applications sought a review of the judgment dated 9th January, 1985 dismiss their appeal. This Court, in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, has no power of review. It has been so held by recent decision of the Supreme Court in Naresh and others v. The State of U.P. 1981 Current Law Reporter 637, that once a judgment was pronounced by the High Court in a criminal case, the High Court is not empowered to review the same. Review is permissible only for correcting clerical error in the judgment. In the Criminal Misc. Applications, the prayer made is not for correcting any clerical error. The petitioners seek the setting aside of the judgment. We are of the considered view that these applications are not competent and this Court has no power to review the previous judgment. The petitioners may be informed that if so advised they may seek their remedy, in case they had not already done, by filing a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India or moving the State Government under section 34(2) of the Act.

With observations, we dismiss these Criminal Miscellaneous Applications (Nos. 1952M and 1954M of 1985).