Gopal v Raja (Cr. Rev. Case No. 851/1935) [1937] EACA 203 (1 January 1937)

## **CRIMINAL REVISION**

## Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., and WEBB, J.

GORDHAN GOPAL, Applicant (Original Accused) v.

## CHHAGAN RAJA, Respondent (Original Complainant) Cr. Rev. Case No. 851/1935

Criminal Procedure—Revision—Order of Subordinate Court altered on revision by single Judge-Application to Supreme Court to review order made on Revision—Crim. Pro. Code, sections 347, 352.

An order made by a Subordinate Court was reversed on revision by a single judge. The party aggrieved then applied to the Supreme Court to review the order made on revision.

Held (19-3-36).—That the Court has no power to review an order made by one of its judges on revision in a criminal case.

(Queen-Empress v. Fox (10 Bom. 176) and Queen-Empress v. Durga Charan (7 All. 672) followed.)

Trivedi for the applicant.

Phadke for the respondent.

JUDGMENT.—The short point for decision is whether the Supreme Court has power to review an order made by one of its judges on revision in a criminal case. No authority has been cited before us in support of the contention that such power exists. It has been argued that the judgment is contrary to law in different respects and should be set aside, but such an argument obviously has no bearing on the question at issue. The answer to the point is to be found in the Full Bench decision in Queen-Empress v. Fox (10 Bom. 176) to the effect that a Divisional Bench of the High Court had not power to review its judgment pronounced on revision in a crimnal case. Besides being a Full Bench decison the case is a strong authority for the reason that it would appear that the conviction, in respect of which the sentence was enhanced on revision, was illegal because of its being founded upon Rules not sanctioned by the Government as required by an Act of the Legislature. The judgment in that case expressed agreement with the decision in Queen-Empress v. Durga Charan (7 All. 672). In the latter case it would also appear that the accused had committed no offence in law but nevertheless the Court consisting of two Judges held that there was no power to review the order made by a single Judge rejecting an application for revision of the conviction. Now there is no material difference between the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Codes in force in India when the cases referred to were decided, and following those decisions we hold that this Court has no power to review the order complained of.

The application is dismissed.