CR.RA/29/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 29 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SAIYAD YUSUF @ SAIYAD SAFARI SAIYAD SULEMAN - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SAMIR J DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, MR KC SHAH APP for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 18/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. K.C. Shah waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State. CR.RA/29/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates for the parties, this Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today. 3. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Application u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr. P.C.”) and challenged the order dated 15-12-2007 passed by learned Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat below application Exh. 76 in NDPS Case No.28 of 2003. 4. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the offences punishable u/ss 8 (c), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) before learned Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat. 5. On conclusion of recording of evidence led by the prosecution, further statement of the petitioner was recorded. Thereafter The petitioner filed application Exh. 76 to examine one witness as defence witness. Learned Judge by his order dated 5-12-2007 granted the application and issued witness summons as prayed for. Thereafter on 15-12-2007 the Court reviewed its earlier order and set aside the same. Being CR.RA/29/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Application. 6. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Samir Dave for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. K.C. Shah for respondent – State. 7. It is not in dispute that the Court granted application to examine defence witness and permitted the petitioner to examine the defence witness. Thereafter without assigning any reason the order was reviewed and the impugned order was passed. The impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is settled proposition that in criminal law, Court has no power to review its own order. Therefore, the learned trial Judge committed error in passing the impugned order and the impugned order is erroneous and perverse and is required to be set aside. 8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Application succeeds and the impugned order dated 15-12-2007 passed below Exh. 76 in NDPS Case No.28 of 2003 by learned Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat is quashed and set aside. The trial Court shall proceed further with NDPS Case No.28 of 2003 pending before it in accordance with law. CR.RA/29/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT Rule is made absolute. D. S. is permitted. (Bankim N. Mehta, J.) /JVSatwara/