1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Munna Lal. Versus Prakash Chandra & Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1050/2005 and Munna Lal. Versus Sayari Devi & ors. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1052/2005 ... Date of Order: Sept. 23, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. R.S. Dev Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: By these two criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 read with Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter), read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks 2 recalling of the order dated 6-1-2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions No.469/2002 and 470/2002, whereby the revisions petitions were dismissed on merit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the aforesaid revision petitions were scheduled to be listed on 5-1-2005, however they were not listed in the Daily Cause List of 5-1-2005 but they were listed in the Supplementary Cause List of 6-1-2005 and since there was no such intimation to the counsel for the petitioner about listing of the matters instead of 5-1-2005 on 6-1-2005, therefore, the counsel could not appear and both the revision petitions have been decided on merit after hearing the counsel for the private respondent and the Public Prosecutor and, therefore, the order dated 6-1-2005 passed in the aforesaid revision petitions deserves to be recalled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in Sir Iqbal Ahmad Vs. The Allahabad Bench of the high Court of Judicature at Allahabad, AIR (37) 1050 Federal Court 71; Mst. Jamna Kuer Vs. Lal Bahadur, 1050 RLW 158; Noor Taki alias Mammu Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 1986 RLW 150; Habu Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 1987 RLW 69; and Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & ors., 2005 AIR SCW 230. 3 It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that rules 69 to 73 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 ( for short, “the Rules of 1952” hereinafter) deal with the procedure of listing the matters, maintenance of the order sheets and the files. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Rules of 1952 do not make any provision for preparing the Supplementary Daily Cause List and only one list is to be prepared, i.e. the Daily Cause List and there is no such words in the Rules of 1952 for preparing the Supplementary Daily Cause List and, therefore, on the date i.e. 6-1-2005 when the matter was listed in the Supplementary Cause List, there was no intimation to the counsel for the petitioner or the parties to this effect and, therefore, the order dated 6-1-2005 passed by this Court in the aforesaid revision petitions deserves to be recalled. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order sought to be recalled. In Sir Iqbal Ahmad Vs. The Allahabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (supra), the Hon'ble Federal Court held that an application by an Advocate concerning his right to appear and plead the case of his clients who were parties to a criminal appeal, though arising out of a criminal case, is not a criminal matter and should be treated as a civil 4 proceeding. An appeal by the Advocate against an adverse order on such application is therefore a civil appeal on which proper court fees must be paid. In Smt. Jamna Kuer Vs. Lal Bahadur (supra), the Federal Court held “whether the error occurred by reason of the counsel's mistake or crept in by reason of an oversight on the aprt of the court is not a circumstance which should affect the exercise of jurisdiction of the court to review its decision. If the error is apparent on the face of the record, the question as to how it occurred is not relevant to the enquiry.” In Noor Taki alias Mammu Vs. The state of Rajasthan (supra), a Full Bench of this Court held Section 482 Cr.P.C. gives wide power to this Court in three circumstances. Firstly, where the jurisdiction is invoked to give effect to an order of the Court. Secondly, if there is an abuse of the process of the Court and, thirdly, in order to secure the ends of justice. The Full Bench further observed as under:- “ we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that since there is a specific bar under Section 306 (4) (b) Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be made application. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court has said it in terms without number, that there is nothing in the Code to fetter the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 5 It appears that in both the revision petitions, the orders have been passed on merit after examining the material on record and, though in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents and the Public Prosecutor have been heard. In my view, this Court has the practice for last so many years for preparing the supplementary cause list and it cannot be said that preparing the supplementary cause list is dehors the Rules. In addition to the daily cause list, there may be supplementary cause list but it cannot be said that preparing supplementary cause list is dehors the Rules. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal, JT 2004 (7) SC 243, which has been reiterated in Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2004 Cr.L.J. 4609, wherein it has been held that “there being no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for review of an order by the same Court. So far as recalling the orders dated 6-1-2005 passed in the revision petitions are concerned, the same have been passed on merit and I do not find any good ground to recall the order. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner turn on their own facts and are not applicable to 6 the facts of the instant petitions. Both the criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs