Court dismisses applications to recall judge's order after 7-year delay; emphasizes order based on merits, not non-prosecution.

The Court dismissed the applications for recalling an order passed by a judge, citing the delay in contacting the counsel over seven years and the order being based on merits rather than non-prosecution. The case involved challenging a complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and discussing the legal implications of orders by the Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal. The Court clarified that findings from these orders did not absolve criminal liability. Ultimately, the Court held that it lacked the competency to recall an order based on merits, leading to the dismissal of both applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for recalling an order passed by a judge.
2. Delay in moving the application.
3. Challenging a complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Legal implications of the order passed by the Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal.
5. Competency of the Court to recall an order passed on merits.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the consideration of two applications: one for recalling an order dated 29-7-2003 passed by Justice N.K. Mehrotra dismissing a case in the absence of counsel, and the other for condoning the delay in moving the recalling application.

2. The applicant sought to recall the order due to the previous counsel's inadvertence and subsequent death. However, the Court noted that the delay of seven years in contacting the counsel was not satisfactorily explained, and the order was not dismissed for non-prosecution but on merits.

3. The case involved a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a complaint and further proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The interim order stayed the proceedings pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

4. The judgment discussed the legal implications of orders passed by the Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, which concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay any penalty. However, the Court clarified that these findings were not binding on criminal courts and did not wipe out the prosecution.

5. Lastly, the Court deliberated on its competency to recall an order passed on merits. It held that since the order was based on the merits of the case and not for non-prosecution, it could not be disturbed subsequently on a recall application. Therefore, both applications were dismissed accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the application for recalling an order, the delay in moving the application, the challenges under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the implications of orders passed by authorities, and the competency of the Court to recall orders passed on merits.

---