Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a criminal court can recall an ex parte order passed without affording hearing to an affected party, notwithstanding the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars alteration or review of a signed judgment or final order except for clerical or arithmetical error. However, the saving clause and the hearing requirement in Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 protect an accused or other affected person from prejudice without an opportunity of being heard. The distinction between review on merits and recall for a procedural defect was applied. An order passed ex parte without hearing the affected party is amenable to recall as a procedural review to prevent failure of justice.
Conclusion: The recall application was maintainable and was allowed. The ex parte order was recalled, and the matter was directed to be listed afresh along with the connected revision.
Final Conclusion: The decision recognises that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not bar recall of an ex parte criminal order passed in breach of the right of hearing, and such a procedural defect can be corrected to secure natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory bar on review under Section 362 does not prevent recall of an ex parte criminal order where the affected party was not heard, because recall for a procedural defect is distinct from review on merits.