TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 was on his legs in Court No. 19 where the arguments were going on. After completing the arguments the counsel immediately rushed to Court No. 25 where he found that the order in the instant criminal revision had already been dictated. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 made a request to Court to hear him also. He also informed the Court that one more Criminal Revision Defective No. 457 of 2008 (now regular number has been allotted as Criminal Revision No. 3385 of 2008) (Ramesh Chandra Goyal Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of same order dated 6.10.2008 is pending before this Court in which interim order in favour of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is in existence but the Court did not pay any heed to the request. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that when the fact about the pendency of one more criminal revision against the same impugned order was informed to this court within 5 minutes of passing of the order dated 7.3.2013 and much before it was signed and uploaded, this Court should have given opportunity of hearing to the applicants. It was also incumbent upon the Court to hear both the revision together for avoiding two different opinions against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s merely remanded the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration hence the parties will get opportunity of hearing before the lower court. He has contended that a criminal court is not empowered to recall its order which becomes functus officio once a matter has been finally decided. Hence the present recall application is not maintainable. In support of his argument Sri N.I. Jafri has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the following cases :- 1. Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others; (2001)1 Supreme Court Cases 169 2. State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair; 2001 AIR (SC) 2145 Per contra Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the applicants/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has contended that there are several judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court and also of this Court making the legal position very clear that there is a difference between "review" and "recall" and what is barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C. Is "review"of an order passed on merits. Sri Satish Trivedi, in support of his contention has placed reliance on the following judgments of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is 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." The judgment in Santosh's case (supra) also reveals almost similar facts. In this case, Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the revision petition filed by the revisionist Santosh. Two revisions were pending in the same matter. However, the matter was taken up by Hon'ble Single Judge ex-parte and the revision was dismissed. An application for recall was filed which was also dismissed on the ground that the order sought to be recalled was passed on merits and, therefore, it cannot be recalled. During the hearing before Hon'ble Supreme Court learned counsel for the appellant indicated various reasons for non appearance on the date when the matter was taken up. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the High Court for afresh consideration on merits. In Ram Abhilakh's case (supra), a criminal rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect a clerical or arithmetical error." A careful perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that a Court is not authorised to alter or review its judgment except for the limited purpose of correcting some clerical or arithmetical error. However, there is a saving provision also because Section 362 Cr.P.C. starts with the words "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force" The saving provision is section 401 Cr.P.C. which clearly provides that no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. In the present case the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are accused persons and the revision filed against them by C.B.I. has been dismissed without giving the accused persons any opportunity of hearing. So far as the power to recall its order by a court dealing with criminal matter is concerned, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed earlier makes a clear distinction between "review" and "recall" and authorises a criminal court to recall its order in case it suffers from some technical error or....