Court denies application to recall judgment due to counsel absence, citing CrPC Section 362, precedent

The court dismissed the application to recall a judgment due to the non-deliberate absence of counsel, emphasizing the restrictions imposed by Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that the absence of provisions empowering the High Court to recall judgments in such circumstances prevented any alteration or review of the judgment. Referring to precedents, the court concluded that the judgment could not be set aside, affirming the prohibition under Section 362 of the CrPC.

---

---

Issues:
Recall of judgment based on misplaced memos of appearance and non-deliberate absence of counsel.

Analysis:
The judgment in question involves an application for recalling a judgment and order dated 6-11-1981 passed in a criminal appeal. The appellants sought to recall the judgment due to the non-deliberate absence of their counsel, despite having filed memos of appearance. The counsel highlighted that the memos were not placed on record, leading to the misunderstanding regarding representation. The counsel argued that had the memos been noticed, the hearing would have been adjourned. The absence of the counsel was deemed unintentional, and the facts presented by the counsel were verified by the court.

The main legal issue revolved around the applicability of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) concerning the recall of a judgment. Section 362 prohibits a court from altering or reviewing a judgment once signed, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. The court analyzed the language and scope of Section 362, emphasizing that it applies to all courts, including the High Court. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision that highlighted the restrictions imposed by Section 362 on altering or reviewing judgments.

The court further examined the absence of any provision in the CrPC or other laws empowering the High Court to recall or set aside a judgment in such circumstances. The court dismissed the argument that recall of a judgment does not constitute an alteration or review, stating that such an interpretation would circumvent the clear prohibition of Section 362. Additionally, the court clarified that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be invoked to review a judgment when Section 362 applies.

The court also referred to previous Supreme Court decisions that upheld the restrictions imposed by Section 362 and Section 482 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the present case did not fall under the category of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, which are the only grounds for altering a judgment under Section 362.

Ultimately, the court concluded that based on the legal provisions and precedents, the judgment and order dated 6-11-1981 could not be recalled or set aside by the court, even in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The application for the recall of the judgment was dismissed, affirming the prohibition under Section 362 of the CrPC.

---