Calcutta High Court Izharun Khatoon @ Nesha-vs-Maqsood @ Muksud Alam on 8 February, 2006
Equivalent citations:2006 (3) CHN 225
Author: A K Bhattacharya
Bench: A K Bhattacharya
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.
1. A short paragraph might perhaps have been enough for disposal of the present case, but a short-cut is a wrong-cut where people’s justice is involved, and so it persuaded my pen to enter into a bit detail, but before I open the discussion, the background history leading to the above application need be stated:
The second wife of the petitioner viz. Izharun Khatoon @ Nesha obtained an order of maintenance @ Rs.400/- p.m. under Section 125 Cr.P.C on 26.07.2000 against the petitioner in M.R. Case No. 100/94 from the Court of ld. SDJM, Islampur which was set aside in Criminal Revision No. 8/2000 by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur on 26.04.2001 on the basis of an observation of the ld. SDJM, Islampur in a judgment in G.R. Case No.57/92 under Sections 323/498A IPC that the de facto complainant is not a married wife of accused O.P. The above order was reversed by this Court in CRR No.1442 of 2001 on 04.02.2002.
2. The petitioner has sought for recalling and modification of the said order dated 04.02.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.A. Chowdhury.
3. Mr. Das, ld. Counsel for the petitioner on referring the cases of Pranab Kumar Chakraborty v. Kumkurn Chakraborty reported in 2005(4) CHN 146 and Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2005(3) Supreme 460, contended that as there are certain errors apparent on the face of the record, his client has sought for recalling and modification of the above order of this Court. Mr. Rahaman, ld. Counsel for the O.P,. on the other hand, submitted that the marriage between the parties having been duly proved which has been elaborately discussed, the present application having no merit deserves to be dismissed.
4. To start with, none of the above two decisions so cited by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, which deal with the scope of review under the Civil Procedure Code, has any manner of application in the present case.
5. From the trend of argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, it appeared that under the garb of recalling and modification, in his strenuous attempt he virtually assaulted the order on merits treating this Court as an appellate authority against the order passed by a Judge having concurrent jurisdiction, which is not at all permissible.
6. Nevertheless, Mr. Das appears to have overlooked the specific provision of Section 362 Cr.P.C which prohibits the Court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorize the High Court to review its judgment or order passed in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original jurisdiction. This prohibition is complete and no Criminal Court can review its judgment and order after it is signed, as was held in the case of State of Kerala v. M.M.M. Nayar . Similar is the observation
in the cases of M.S.T. Simrikhia v. Dolly Mukherjee and Mati Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1994 Cr. LJ 2184 (SC) which stand for the proposition that the prohibition contained in Section 362 is absolute after the judgment is signed and even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same.
7. Accordingly, the application CRAN No. 1241/2002 being devoid of any merit be dismissed.