Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2307 of 2011 (4) dt.05-03-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2307 of 2011 ====================================================== Suresh Pandey&Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 05-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In this case, petitioners/accused are aggrieved by the order dated 20th May 2006 by which the court below has passed the order for de novo trial with the absconding persons. Petitioners are challenging the order passed in connection with Parsa (Bheldi) P.S.Case No. 68 of 2002 for the offences [STATUTE] stage and only the Doctor and the I.O. are to be examined. The trial court by the impugned order has put the clock back as court has directed for de novo trial along with absconding accused. The court is of the view that his predecessor has not passed an order splitting the case and, as such, earlier order passed by his predecessor has been recalled and the case has been put to de novo trial. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2307 of 2011 (4) dt.05-03-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the court below has committed an illegality in recalling the earlier order, as there is complete prohibition as provided under Section 362 Cr.P.C. for recalling or reviewing the order passed by the court. It has further been submitted that the court below can try the persons independently and there is no question of any de novo trial when the case is at the advance stage as it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the proposition that the court cannot review or recall his earlier order inasmuch as the State is not in a position to support the order in view of the fact that only the doctor and the I.O. are to be examined, whereas in the case of absconding accused, it will be completely a new trial. In that view of the matter, the order dated 20th May 2006 is quashed and this petition is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since it is a case of 2002, it requires early disposal. The court below will see that the case moves expeditiously and is concluded at an early date. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 447

Statute Text:
Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal trespass. Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.