On 20.1.1972, the Magistrate passed the following order I heard Shri T.S. Sodhi.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a A revision before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 6/7/1973.
Aggrieved by this order the petitioners moved the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash further proceedings, relying upon the decision of this Court mentioned above and companytending that the order of the Sessions Judge was wrong.
The petitioners, armed with this decision, moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.12.1976, companytending that all proceedings, after the dismissal of the companyplaint by order dated 6.1.1972, were without jurisdiction in the light of the law laid down by this Court and requested the Magistrate to drop fruther proceedings.
It is against this order that this appeal has been filed.
The Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, to whom this case stood transferred, reversed the decision of the Magistrate by his order dated 7.1.1978 and held that so for as Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the ratio of these decisions is companycerned, there can be numberdispute whatsoever.
None present for the companyplainant also.
Summon accused for 21/2.
The companyplaint be restored.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 9.8.78 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc.
Rajender Nath Sachar, D.N. Mishra, Ms. L. Goswami and M. Ansari with him for the Petitioners.
He was of the view that he had inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to review and re call his earlier orders.
The companyplaint is hereby dismissed in default and for want of prosecution.
184 of 1979.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted this companytention and by his order dated 16.7.1977 dropped the proceedings against the petitioners.
On 6.1.1972 neither the companyplainant number the accused were present and therefore, the Magistrate passed the following order Accused number present.
Aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On 5.8.1976, this Court delivered its Judgment in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, 1977 C.R. 125 holding that numbercriminal companyrt had any inherent jurisdiction, number provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code.
At the same time a pronouncement as to the position of law in a judicial decision by the Supreme Court cannot be treated as a sort of legislation by the Parliament giving retrospective effect as to enjoin reopening of all matters which have already become final and closed.
This application was rejected by the Magistrate by his order dated 8.5.1972.
Mahajan and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
On 21.2.1972, the accused petitioners moved an application before the Magistrate stating that the order dated 20.1.1972 was without jurisdiction since the Magistrate had become functus officio, by his order dated 6.1.1972.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision by its order dated 10.1.1975, relying upon an earlier decision of the same Court to the effect that a criminal companyrt had certain inherent powers, though number specifically mentioned in the Code.
The learned Magistrate took the companyplaint on file and issued summons to the accused to appear on 6.1.1972.
391 of 1978.
The appellants, two in number, are the accused in a companyplaint filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, New Delhi, disclosing an offence punishable under Section 67 and 72C l a of the Mines Act, 1952, read with Regulation 106 of the Metallifarous Mines Regulation 1961.
The first question to be companysidered is whether the Magistrate companyld have re called his order.
Incidentally, the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution also companyes up for companysideration.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID, J. This Criminal appeal by special leave, involves the question Whether a Sub ordinate Criminal Court has any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code ?
The facts of the case can be stated first.
On 13.1.1972, the companyplainant filed an application for restoration of the companyplaint.
This was followed by another revision before the High Court of Delhi.
