| Case ID |
ffc8b877-0e6d-460c-ba5b-6df39233ba24 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
Oct 27, 1984 |
| Hearing Date |
May 18, 1984 |
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court set aside the order dated 27-10-1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had restored a criminal revision petition that was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court held that under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal court, including the High Court, has no jurisdiction to review or set aside its own orders except for correcting clerical errors. The only remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach a higher court. Therefore, the order restoring the revision petition was declared not legally valid, and the revision petition remained dismissed as per the order dated 18-05-1984. |
| Summary |
In this landmark case, the Delhi High Court dealt with the legal intricacies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly focusing on Sections 362 and 482. The case involved the Income-tax Department filing a complaint against Mrs. M.T.R. Powar and her late husband under sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The department's complaint lingered without much progress until 1983 when some documents were finally submitted. The Magistrate discharged Mrs. Powar, which led the department to file a revision petition. However, due to non-appearance, the Sessions Judge dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. The department's attempt to review this decision was initially successful, but the High Court intervened, emphasizing that Section 362 prohibits the court from reviewing its own orders post-dismissal. The court confirmed that the only recourse for the aggrieved party is to appeal to a higher court. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the limited scope for review within criminal proceedings, which could have broader implications for similar cases nationwide. Keywords: Criminal Procedure Code, Section 362, inherent powers, Income-tax Act, legal review. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Income-tax Department
|
| Judges |
G.R. Luthra
|
| Lawyers |
R.L. Mehta,
Sanjeev Khanna,
Satpal,
Pawan Bahl
|
| Petitioners |
Mrs. M.T.R. Powar
|
| Respondents |
R.K. Gupta, Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1987 SLD 3096,
1987 165 ITR 119
|
| Other Citations |
Surinder Singh v. State [1981] 20 DLT 372,
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh AIR 1977 SC 2432,
S.N. Sharma v. State 1971 CLJ 1056 (AP),
Mina Ram v. Jivlu Budhu 1974 CLJ 718 (HP),
Srikand Srivastava v. State of U.P. 1985 (1) Crimes 924 (All.),
S.A. Venkatesu v. Venkatamma 1976 CLJ 220 (AP),
Shrimari Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain ILR [1980] 1 Delhi 237,
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [1981] 2 SCR 341
|
| Laws Involved |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
362,
482,
277,
278
|