Showkat Ahmad Wani And Others vs State Of J&K

This review petition is directed against the order dated 10th June, 2011 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No.41/2006 whereby the challenge of

the State to the order of discharge dated 20th July, 2006 passed by the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar (Trial Court) in the case titled

State v. Showkat Ahmad Wani and others was accepted and the order impugned set-aside.

From the perusal of the order sought to be reviewed, it clearly transpires that revision petition of the State was allowed on the ground that the trial

court at the preliminary stage had looked into the material submitted by the accused, the petitioners herein, and discharged them while placing reliance

on such material.

This Court while allowing the revision petition left it open to the trial court to give a second look to the charge sheet and material submitted

therewith to find out whether such material constitutes or does not constitute sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents. It is this order

which is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no provision for seeking review yet submits

that this court has ample power under Section 482 under the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that instant case does not fall within the parameters laid

down by the Supreme Court for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is trite that the criminal court or the court

exercising criminal jurisdiction does not have the power of review. Otherwise also, the orders passed by this court cannot be reviewed or set aside or

interfered with by this Court even in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction unless an exceptional case is made out. It is not the case of the petitioner that

the order sought to be reviewed has been passed by this court without affording an opportunity of hearing and has caused miscarriage of justice. This

court has decided the matter after arriving at a conclusion that the trial court has committed a serious illegality at the time of framing of the charge.

Be that as it is, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record which would call

for review of the order, even if it is conceded that order under review can be reviewed under law.

For all these reasons, I find no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed being not maintainable. Needless to say that the trial court

while considering the charge or discharge of the accused shall not get influenced by any observations made by the High Court except that he would

not take into account the documents which the petitioners have produced before it.