Report No. 141

3.4. A Bombay Case.-

In a Bombay case1 the petitioner was being prosecuted under sections 341, 397 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a complaint by one Navabai Vasandani. The Magistrate issued process to the petitioner. The order of issue of process passed by the Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by way of a criminal writ petition. The petition came up for hearing on February 2, 1984, on which date a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the petitioner. The case was adjourned to February 13, 1984. However, the sheristedar of the court inadvertently mentioned the next date of hearing in the roznama as February 8, 1984.

The writ petition when called out for hearing on February 8, 1984 was dismissed in default, since none was present on behalf of the petitioner. On an application being made for restoration of the case, the Bombay High Court held that in its inherent powers, as provided in section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court could review or revise its own judgment, if such a judgment was pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party who was entitled to hearing and that party was not at fault. That party should not suffer for mistake of court.

1. Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cr LJ 23, para. 6 (Born) (Kantharia, J.).