Kencha Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, 1973 (central act no. 2 of 1974) section 362 - no court after its signature, can alter or review its judgment/final order except to correct clerical or arithmetical error.;after pronouncement of judgment dismissing the appeal, appellant sought recall of the judgment, on the ground appeal has been disposed of without hearing him or his counsel.;section 362 cr. p.c. says that except as otherwise provided in the code or by any other law for the time being in force, no court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of the case shall alter or review the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. the present section 362 corresponds to old section 369 except for a slight change and one such change brought about in the new section is that apart from a judgment, a final order disposing of a case is also brought within the scope of section 362. in that way the scope of the section is widened.; -- section 482 -- inherent powers exercisable only to interfere with judgment/order of subordinate court not to review/recall judgment/final order of high court -- inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent specific mandate of code.;it is one thing to say that exercising its inherent powers this court can interfere with a finding, an order or a sentence of a court subordinate to it. but it is entirely a different matter to urge that that power is available to this court to review or recall its own judgment or final order without there being a specific provision in the code itself for doing so. the inherent powers of the court cannot be used to circumvent a specific mandate of the code itself. - minimum wages act, 1948section 5 (1) & karnataka minimum wages rules, 1958: [subhash b.adi, j] determination of minimum wages challenge as to notification - held, for fixing the minimum wages, state is only discharging its constitutional obligation imposed upon it under the directive principles of state policy. this is a constitutional duty towards the economically weaker section of the society and cannot be allowed to be defeated on a theory of capacity of the industry to pay, which is a judicial blast placed on the meaning of article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india. capacity of an industry to pay has no application to exercise power by the state in fixing the minimum wages. state in issuing notification under section 5 exercises the legislative power and there is no requirement for the state to give reasons for its decision. further, the state government has fairly and reasonably exercised its power conferred under section 5 clause (b) proviso, as there is no counter proposal by the advisory board and advisory board has also deliberated on the issue. even assuming that there are any technical error, broadly when the minimum rates of wages is fixed by the impugned notification and being most reasonably fixed after nine years, court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the government and particularly in the matter of fixation of minimum wages, the scope of interference by the court under article 226 being very limited. the notifications issued are in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made there under.ordervenkatesh, j.1. i. a. ii is an application filed by the appellant in this case to recall the judgment dated 22-2-1985 pronounced by the court dismissing the appeal for reasons stated therein. the judgment is signed. in i. a. ii which is under section 482 cr. p.c. the request is, as already stated, to recall that judgment and to hear him.2. in support of the application the appellant had filed an affidavit stating that he had engaged a counsel at thefirst instance, but had withdrawn the brief from him in order to engage some other advocate; that in the mean while he had been laid up with serious illness and that in the meanwhile the appeal had been disposed of after hearing the public prosecutor, but not hearing him or his counsel and therefore the judgment be recalled and he be heard afresh.3. section 362 cr. p.c. says that except as otherwise provided in the code or by any other law for the time being in force, no court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of the case shall alter or review the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. the present section 362 corresponds to old section 369 except for a slight change and one such change brought about in the new section is thatapart from a judgment, a final order disposing of a case is also brought within the scope of section 362. in that way the scope of the section is widened. examining the scope of the old section 369, the supreme court observes in state of orissa -v.- ramchander agarwala, that 'once a judgment has been pronounced by a high court either in exercise of its appellate or itsrevisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the code which would enable the high court to review the same....'. the request in i. a. ii is to recall the order already pronounced.4. placing reliance on raj kapoor & others -v.- state (delhi administration) the learnedcounsel or the applicant in i. a. ii submitted that exercising its inherent powers under section 482 cr. p.c. the court may, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that his client had not been heard, may recall that order. the ratio in raj kapoor's case will not govern this case. what the supreme court observes in that case is that the high court can in an appropriate case revise an order of a court subordinate to it1. air 1979 sc 842. : 1980 crilj202 exercising its inherent powers under section 482, even if its revisional power under section 397 overlaps. it is one thing to say that exercising its inherent powers this court can interfere with a finding, an order or a sentence of t court subordinate to it. but it is entirely a different matter to urge that that power is available to this court to review or recall its own judgment or final order without there being a specific provision in the code itself for doing so. theinherent powers of the court cannot be used to circumvent a specific mandate of the code itself. the present section 482 corresponds to old section 561a and dealing with thequestion of the court's inherent powers the supreme court in ramchander agarwal's case itself says that 'the provisions of section 561a cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the code.'5. for reasons stated above, there is no merit in this i.a. therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Venkatesh, J.

1. I. A. II is an application filed by the appellant in this case to recall the Judgment dated 22-2-1985 pronounced by the Court dismissing the appeal for reasons stated therein. The Judgment is signed. In I. A. II which is under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the request is, as already stated, to recall that Judgment and to hear him.

2. In support of the application the appellant had filed an affidavit stating that he had engaged a counsel at thefirst instance, but had withdrawn the brief from him in order to engage some other Advocate; that in the mean while he had been laid up with serious illness and that in the meanwhile the appeal had been disposed of after hearing the Public Prosecutor, but not hearing him or his counsel and therefore the Judgment be recalled and he be heard afresh.

3. Section 362 Cr. P.C. says that except as otherwise provided in the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court when it has signed its Judgment or final order disposing of the case shall alter or review the said Judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The present Section 362 corresponds to old Section 369 except for a slight change and one such change brought about in the new Section is thatapart from a Judgment, a final order disposing of a case is also brought within the scope of Section 362. In that way the scope of the Section is widened. Examining the scope of the old Section 369, the Supreme Court observes in State of Orissa -v.- Ramchander Agarwala, that 'once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or itsrevisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same....'. The request in I. A. II is to recall the order already pronounced.

4. Placing reliance on Raj Kapoor & Others -v.- State (Delhi Administration) the LearnedCounsel or the applicant in I. A. II submitted that exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the Court may, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that his client had not been heard, may recall that order. The ratio in Raj Kapoor's case will not govern this case. What the Supreme Court observes in that case is that the High Court can in an appropriate case revise an order of a Court subordinate to it1. AIR 1979 SC 842. : 1980 CriLJ202 exercising its inherent powers under Section 482, even if its revisional power under Section 397 overlaps. It is one thing to say that exercising its inherent powers this Court can interfere with a finding, an order or a sentence of t Court subordinate to it. But it is entirely a different matter to urge that that power is available to this Court to review or recall its own Judgment or final order without there being a specific provision in the Code itself for doing so. Theinherent powers of the Court cannot be used to circumvent a specific mandate of the Code itself. The present Section 482 corresponds to old Section 561A and dealing with thequestion of the Court's inherent powers the Supreme Court in Ramchander Agarwal's case itself says that 'the provisions of Section 561A cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the Code.'

5. For reasons stated above, there is no merit in this I.A. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.