It, however, appears that the respondents contended that the revision petition was barred by limitation. Even this contention is founded on a very technical ground that even though the revision petition was filed very much in time the requisite power of attorney of the learned advocate on behalf of the petition was not legally complete and when it was re-submitted the limitation had expired. Without going into the nicety of this too technical contention, we may notice that Section 397 of the CrPC enables the High Court to exercise power of revision suo motu and when the attention of the High Court was drawn to a clear illegality the High Court could not have rejected the petition as time barred thereby perpetuating the illegality and miscarriage of justice. The question whether a discharge order is interlocutory or otherwise need not detain us because it is settled by a decision of this Court that the discharge order terminates the proceedings and, therefore it is revisable under Section 397(1), Cr. PC and -Section 397(1) in terms confers power of suo motu revision on the High Court, and if the High Court exercises suo motu revision power the same cannot be denied on the ground that there is some limitation prescribed for the exercise of the power because none such is prescribed. {Para 5}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1981
Decided On: 11.02.1981
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Girdharilal Sapuru and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.N. Sen and D.A. Desai, JJ.
Author: D.A. Desai, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0189/1981,AIR 1981 SC 1169.
Print Page