Step 1: Understanding Section 271 of the Cr.PC.
Section 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), 1973, provides that the State Government has the power to determine the language of the courts (other than the High Court) within its jurisdiction. This ensures uniformity in judicial proceedings across the state's subordinate courts.
Step 2: Explanation of Other Options.
- (b) Central Government: The Central Government does not have the power to decide the language of courts within individual states under this section.
- (c) Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court is the apex judicial authority, but it has no role in determining the working language of subordinate courts within states.
- (d) (a) and (b): Incorrect — this authority is vested solely in the State Government, not shared with the Centre.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Under Section 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the State Government has the exclusive authority to determine the language of the courts other than the High Court within the state.
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, and on perusal of the ma terial on record, the primary issue which arises for consideration of this Court is ”whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under section 340 of CrPC is permissible or not?” [...] A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarized would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable. Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a procedural review that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review where the bar as contained in Section 362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu.
(Extracted with edits and revisions from Vikram Bakshi v. RP Khosla 2025 INSC 1020)