State of U.P. & ANR.
These Appeals were
called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE
GYAN SUDHA MISRA For
Mr. Manoj Swarup,
Ms. Lalita Kohli,
Adv. for M/S Manoj Swarup & Co.,Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Adv. Ms. Vibha
Datta Makhija Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv. M/S Manoj
Swarup & Co.
UPON hearing counsel
the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal fails and
is accordingly dismissed. Crl. Appeal No. 875 of 2006 The Appeal is dismissed
as having become infructuous. ( Deepak Mansukhani ) ( Indu Satija ) Court
Master Court Master
(The signed order is
placed on the file)
Vishnu Agarwal Vs
State of U.P. & ANR.
O R D E R
Criminal Appeal No.
1323/2004 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed
against the impugned Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 29.1.2004 in Criminal
Revision No. 136/1998. It appears that the aforesaid Criminal Revision was
listed in the High Court on 2.9.2003. No one appeared on behalf of the Revisionist,
though the Counsels for respondents appeared. In these circumstances, the
judgment was passed. Subsequently, an application was moved for recall of the Order
dated 2.9.2003 alleging that the case was shown in the computer list and not in
the main list of the High Court, and hence, the learned Counsel for the
Revisionist had not noted the case and hence he did not appear.
It often happens that
sometimes a case is not noted by the Counsel or his clerk in the cause list,
and hence, the Counsel does not appear. This is a human mistake and can happen to
anyone. Hence, the High Court recalled the order dated 2.9.2003 and directed the
case to be listed for fresh hearing. The aforesaid order recalling the order dated
2.9.2003 has been challenged before us in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant
has relied on the decision of this Court in Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh
Bajwa AIR 2001 SC 43. Para 10 of the said judgment states: " Section 362
of the Code mandates that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final
order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a
clerical or arithmetical error.
The Section is based on
an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a
Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus
officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the
former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction
in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the
official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered
except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error.
The reliance of the respondent
on Talab Haji Hussain's case (AIR 1958 SC 376)(supra) is misconceived. Even in that
case it was pointed that inherent powers conferred on High Courts under Section
561A(Section 482 of the new Code) has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section itself. It is not disputed that the petition
filed under Section 482 of the Code had been finally disposed of by the High
Court on 7.1.1999. The new Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in
view the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law Commission and the Joint
Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not
only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment."
Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Manoj Swarup submitted that in view of
the aforesaid decision, the High Court erred in law in recalling the Order
dated 2.9.2003. We regret we cannot agree.
In our opinion,
Section 362 cannot be considered in a rigid and over technical manner to defeat
the ends of justice. As Brahaspati has observed : "Kevalam Shastram
Ashritya Na Kartavyo Vinirnayah Yuktiheeney Vichare tu Dharmahaani Prajayate"
which means: "The Court should not give its decision based only on the
letter of the law. For if the decision is wholly unreasonable, injustice will follow."
Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the respondent
was an application for recall of the Order dated 2.9.2003 and not for review. In
Asit Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2009(1) SCR 469, this Court made a
distinction between recall and review which is as under:-
"There is a distinction
between ...... a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition,
the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of
the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but
simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing
to an affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall
petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association
Vs. Raghabendra Singth & Ors. [2007(11) SCC 374] cancelling certain licences
was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been
granted licences." Hence, we see no error in the impugned order passed by
the High Court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Crl. Appeal No.
875 of 2006 The Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)