Judgment:
H.H. Mehta, J.
1. Mr. R.S.Sanjawala, learned Advocate for the applicant is absent when this matter is called out. Heard Mr. B.D.Desai, learned APP for respondent No.1 -State and Mr. Rajesh K. Kanani, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 i.e. original complainant.
2. When this matter was called out on previous date i.e. on 28th March, 2003, Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Advocate for the applicant had appeared before and submitted to this Court that in view of the fact that this type of application for reviewing the judgment in criminal matter was not maintainable, and therefore, this present application was required to be disposed of by this Court. It was made clear to Mr. Sanjanwala that if the applicant wanted to get this matter disposed of by speaking order of this Court, then possibly necessary orders with regard to compensation might be passed. In view of the above fact, he further submitted that he would like to contact his client for getting necessary instructions to withdraw this application and on that clear understanding, this matter was adjourned to this day i.e. on 4th April, 2003.
3. In continuation of the request made on 28th March, 2003, today, Mr. Sanjanwala is absent when this matter is called out. It appears that the applicant is now no more interested to prosecute this application further. Looking to the nature of this application, this Court finds no reason to dispose of this application by dismissing it for want of prosecution. To set an example, this is a fit case in which this Court should pass an order on merits.
4. Rule. Service of notice of rule is waived by Mr. B.D.Desai, learned APP for the respondent No.1 and Mr. R.K.Kanani, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2. Looking to peculiar facts of the case, this matter is taken up for final hearing.
5. I have heard Mr. B.D.Desai, learned APP for the respondent No.1 -State and Mr.R.K.Kanani, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 (Original complainant) at length.
6. By filing this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the applicant original accused no.3 has prayed to review a common judgment dated 4th May, 2001 rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4188 of 1999 by which a group of thirty Criminal Misc. Applications came to be disposed of on merits. 30 Criminal Misc. Applications (in a group) were filed by original accused No.3 for quashing different criminal cases lodged in the trial Court on the basis of Cheques issued. Criminal Cases were filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In that group of 30 Criminal Misc. Applications, learned Advocates for both the parties had appeared and after hearing the learned Advocates for both the parties and after perusing the record of the case, this Court disposed of that group of 30 matters on merits by rendering a common judgment dated 4th May, 2001. [Reported in 2002 (1) Vol. XLIII(1) GLR 293]
7. By presenting this application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. that very accused no.3 has prayed to review the said common judgment already pronounced by this Court on 4th May, 2001.
8. I have gone through the averements made in memo of this application. From averments, it appears that the applicant wants that this Court should examine applications under Sec.482, Cr.P.C. by appreciating the facts on record and law, afresh.
9. It seems that Mr. Sanjanwala has lost sight of Sec. 362 of Cr.P.C. It reads as follows:
Sec.362: Court not to alter judgment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
10. Looking to the averments made in the memo of application, it seems that the applicant has not advanced any case for getting any clerical mistake or arithmetical error corrected by this court. Looking to the averments made by the applicant in Memo of this application, the applicant wants that this Court should again reappreciate the material on record and the matter be heard, afresh to come to different conclusion. In view of Sec. 362 of Cr.P.C. it is not possible for this Court to review the judgment which is already pronounced by this Court. This present petition is submitted by mentioning Sec. 482, Cr.P.C., in cause title, meaning thereby, the applicant wants that this Court should exercise its inherent powers conferred on it under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. Before the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came into force, in old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, corresponding Sec.561A of Cr.P.C. was there for inherent powers of the Criminal Courts.
11. In case of Vafati Gokul v. The State of Gujarat, reported in 1966 (7) G.L.R. 1114, Division Bench of this Court held as under:
'The provision of sec.561A of the Criminal Procedure Code is only an enabling provision. The inherent powers cannot be used to override the express provisions of law. In other words, if there are specific provisions of the Code dealing with a particular topic and they expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the Court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter, the inherent powers of the court cannot be invoked to cut across the powers conferred by the Code.'
12. In case of Mosst. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee alias Smt. Chabbi Mukherjee and another, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1605, it has been held as under:
'The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review under Sec.362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi V. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 : (AIR 1981 SC 736) that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which cannot be done on account of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power.'
13. In decision in case of Hari Singh Mann. v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 43, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the same legal position by holding as under:
'There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of S. 482. S.362 of the Code mandates that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set side by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error.'
14. In recent decision in case of State of Kerala v. M.M.Manikantan Nair, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2145, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
'The Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the High Court to review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction. S.362 of the Code prohibits the Court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is complete and no criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. ................'
15. Here in this case, impugned judgment which is sought to be reviewed, is not set aside by Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any order directing this Court to rehear the matter again.
16. In view of the above legal position, this present application is not maintainable. It seems that the applicant has abused the process of law by filing this type of application. As per statement of Mr.Sanjanwala made on previous date, he was knowing that this application was not maintainable. Inspite of this, the applicant has pursued this matter, further. This is nothing but an abuse of process of law by filing this application. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case in which the applicant should be ordered to pay special costs which can be used for good and benevolent purposes. In view of the matter, this application is devoid of merit, and therefore, it is required to be dismissed.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this revision application is dismissed. Applicant is ordered to pay Rs.10,000/(Rs. Ten thousand only) as costs as a special case and that amount is ordered to be deposited in the Office of High Court Legal Service Committee within one month from the date of this order. Office is directed to revert back this matter to Court after one month, if the said amount is not deposited by the applicant pursuant to this order. Necessary orders will be passed when this matter will be placed by Registry again before this Court after one month. Rule is discharged accordingly.