TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the sentence in the judgment required correction on the ground of a misreading of the sealed-cover note; (ii) whether the review petitions disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record for non-consideration of the binding law on registration of FIRs; (iii) whether any direction for criminal proceedings or further investigation was warranted in view of the nature of the complaint and the statutory bar under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issue (i): Whether the sentence in the judgment required correction on the ground of a misreading of the sealed-cover note.
Analysis: The impugned sentence was shown to have created ambiguity because it mixed what had already occurred with what was stated to happen in the usual course. The correction was accepted on the basis that the disputed sentence was only part of the factual narration and not the foundation of the conclusion.
Conclusion: The correction application was allowed and the impugned sentence was replaced by the revised wording.
Issue (ii): Whether the review petitions disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record for non-consideration of the binding law on registration of FIRs.
Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to patent error, miscarriage of justice, or other grounds analogous to those recognized in the governing rules. A review is not a rehearing or an appeal in disguise. Non-consideration of a binding Constitution Bench decision laying down the mandatory duty to register an FIR when cognizable offences are disclosed may amount to an apparent error, but the Court also assessed the review challenge against the limited scope of judicial review exercised in the original judgment and the fact that the complaint related to allegations against public servants in the context of official decision-making.
Conclusion: The review petitions were dismissed by the majority, though the separate opinion considered that the relief sought under the binding FIR jurisprudence could be examined subject to the statutory bar in Section 17A.
Issue (iii): Whether any direction for criminal proceedings or further investigation was warranted in view of the nature of the complaint and the statutory bar under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Analysis: The complaint alleged cognizable offences and ordinarily would attract the rule of mandatory registration of FIR, subject to the possibility of a preliminary inquiry in corruption matters. However, Section 17A bars enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into offences relatable to recommendations or decisions taken in discharge of official functions without prior approval. On the majority view, the complaint did not justify further intervention in review, while the separate opinion considered that any action on the complaint must proceed in accordance with law and after obtaining the necessary approval.
Conclusion: No direction for FIR registration or criminal proceedings was issued in the majority decision.
Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the original disposal of the review challenge, granted correction of the identified sentence, closed the contempt proceedings with caution, and left other pending applications disposed of.
Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only for a patent error or comparable ground, and a binding precedent or statutory mandate ignored in the original adjudication may constitute such an error, but relief remains subject to the governing statutory restrictions and the limited scope of the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
