AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision case is against an order reviewing the earlier order discharging the accused under S. 249 Cr.P.C.
The Court below relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court reported in Subhlal Gope and Another Vs. State of Bihar, wherein it is held that the court has inherent power to review its own orders.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the power of review is not conferred under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and as such the impugned order is devoid of jurisdiction and illegal. The reliance is made upon the Full Bench decision of this court in Public Prosecutor, A.P. v. Devireddy Nagi Reddy (1962) 2 ALT 128 : 1962 (2) Cri LJ 727 wherein it is held that the power of review is not inherent in any court unless it is conferred by a statute.
The circumstances in which the court can recall its own order under inherent powers are well-settled and such a power to recall an order should not be confused with the power of review. It is fairly settled that the court has no power to review its order unless there is a provision specifically empowering the same. There is no provision under Cr.P.C. enabling the court to exercise the power of review. The inherent power conferred on the High Court under S. 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be called in aid in a situation where the Magistrate seeks to review the matter. The power of review lacks sanction of any of the provisions of Criminal P.C. Therefore I am unable to agree with the decision of the Patna High Court.
The order of the court below is set aside and the criminal revision case allowed.
Revision allowed.