Jharkhand High Court
Raju Hari vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3255 of 2021
Raju Hari ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Vijay Kumar Mandal @ Bijay Kumar Mandal ...... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
05/Dated: 10/05/2022
Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2.
This petition has been filed for modification/revise/recall of the
order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1107/2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of
suppressing fact that order has been obtained by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier
Court has directed to decide the case at the earliest but by the petition filed by
the O.P. No. 2 the trial has been delayed.
In Cr.M.P. No. 1107 of 2021, order dated 16.03.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Deoghar in connection with Rikhiya
P.S. Case No. 72 of 2018 arising out of S.T. No. 117 of 2019 was set aside in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajaram
Prasad Yadav Versus State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2013) 14 SCC
461 and the matter was remitted back to the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar to re-examine the matter and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law.
This petition has been filed for modification/revise/recall of the
order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1107/2021. The Court has
already passed order in Cr.M.P. No. 1107 of 2021 and in view of specific bar
which is contained under section 362 Cr.P.C., this Court has got no power to
revise or modify which has already been passed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. provides as
under:-
"362 Cr.P.C:- Court not to alter judgment-Save as
otherwise provided by this 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 a case, shall alter or
review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical
error."
It is well settled that in absence of statutory provision for
review/modification application cannot be entertained in the garb of
clarification the earlier order cannot be modified or corrected. Conferring
jurisdiction upon the Court/Tribunal/Authority is a legislative function and the
same cannot be conferred by the Court or by the authorities.
Thus, the contention of the petitioner for modification of order is
rejected. This petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to make out his
case before the trial court.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
