Orissa High Court
Balgopal Satpathy vs State Of Orissa ..... Opp. Party on 22 November, 2024
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 133 of 2006
Balgopal Satpathy ..... Petitioner
Mr.D.P. Nanda, Senior Advocate
with Mr. L. Rayatsingh, Advocate
Vs.
State of Orissa ..... Opp. Party
Mr. M.R. Patra, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
22.11.2024
(Through hybrid mode)
Order No. I.A. No. 542 of 2024
12. 1. This I.A. has been filed with the following prayer:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
graciously pleased to allow this petition and recall/modify the
judgment dated 15.05.2024 by hearing the matter through the
present new counsel, for the interest of justice.
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty
bound ever pray."
2. Since no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue
the case, in spite of grant of a number of adjournments, I thought it
proper to peruse the records and dispose of the Criminal Revision.
3. Judgment in this case has been delivered on 15.05.2024 in
separate sheet or after observing as follows in the order sheet:
"2. On 04.03.2024, when the matter was called, no counsel
appeared on behalf of the petitioner for which the case was
adjourned to 18.03.2024 and the Registry has been directed to
inform Mr. J.N. Rath and Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for
the petitioner regarding the non-appearance and the next date
of listing of the case.
3. On 20.03.2024, none appeared for the petitioner for
which in order to give another chance to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the case was directed to be listed on
21.03.2024.
4. On 21.03.2024, Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel
prayed for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. S. K. Jethy,
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as the file is of
the year 2006, it has been recently located and they need some
time for preparation, for which the case was adjourned to
04.04.2024.
5. On 04.04.2024, Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel
submitted that he has received the vakalatnama on behalf of
the petitioner and would file the same on the next day and
prayed for an adjournment for two weeks to obtain the
certified copies of the documents and argue the case.
Considering the said prayer, the case had been adjourned to
22.04.2024.
6. The matter was thereafter taken up on 25.04.2024, on
which date Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr. S.K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner
prayed for an adjournment in order to obtain the certified
copies of the depositions of the witnesses. It was directed on
that day that if the learned counsel produces a pen drive
before the Registry by 29.04.2024, he would be supplied with
soft copies of the depositions of the witnesses and the matter
was adjourned to 03.05.2024.
7. On 03.05.2024, Ms. Payal Ray, learned counsel prayed
for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. D. P. Nanda, learned
Senior Counsel stating that Mr. Nanda had been recently
engaged by the petitioner. On the said date Mr. S. S.
Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel had
produced the instructions of the Inspector-in-charge,
Nimakhandi Police Station, Berhampur, wherein it was stated
that the petitioner Balgopaalm Satapathy was alive and
working as Headmaster of Guguda High School and staying
at Nimakhandi Village. The said instructions were taken on
record. Since the case is of the year 2006 and for the last two
months on five occasions the matter had been adjourned, the
case was directed to be listed on 14.05.2024.
8. Today, when the matter is taken up, none appears for
the petitioner when the matter is called."
4. Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that this I.A. is in the nature of a mercy
petition for converting the punishment R.I. for one year to fine or
Simple Imprisonment since more than 28 years have elapsed since
the date of incident. He further submits that the petitioner is a
teacher and has been falsely implicated in the case because of a
dispute going on between the School management and the parents of
the student.
5. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
the State of Punjab vrs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others
reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770: AIR 2012 SC 364 stating that under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. if a judgment has been pronounced without
jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where
the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of
being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained
by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its
being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall
such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order
becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would
not operate.
6. Unfortunately, only the placitum/head note portion of the
judgment reported in Manupatra has been produced for perusal of
this Court. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate undertakes to
produce the complete judgment in course of the day. A detailed
order shall be passed after going through the decision of the
Supreme Court.
7. Section 362 of Cr.P.C. provides as follows:
"362. 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."
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar (supra) has also held that there is no power of review with
the Criminal Court and the High Court can alter or review its
judgment before it is signed but once a matter is finally disposed of
by a Court, in absence of a specific statutory provision the Court
becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer
for any relief and the High Court even in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to
alter/review the same.
9. Since enough opportunity of hearing was provided in this
case, I do not consider it to be a fit case for exercise of power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to recall/ modify the judgment as the
principles of natural justice have not been violated and there has not
been any abuse of process of the Court.
10. Hence the I.A. for modification is dismissed.
11. After perusal of the entire judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra), a
detailed order shall be passed.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
puspa
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 29-Nov-2024 20:53:15
