TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Petitioners whose review applications seeking review of judgment of this Court confirming death sentence were rejected by circulation but death sentences were not executed. 2. Both the applicants Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and Jasvir Singh @ Jassa were tried for offences Under Section 302, 364A, 201 and 120B Indian Penal Code. The trial court vide its judgment dated 20th December, 2016/21st December, 2016 convicted both the applicants as well as one Smt. Sonia wife of Jasvir Singh and awarded death sentence to all the three Accused Under Section 302 and 364A Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 105-DB of 2007 was filed before the High Court by all the Accused against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Murder Reference No. 1 of 2007 was also made by the Sessions Judge before the High Court seeking confirmation of death sentence. Both Murder Reference No. 1 of 2007 as well as Criminal Appeal No. 105-DB of 2007 were heard and disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court dated 30.05.2008. The High Court accepted the Murder Reference No. 1 of 2007 and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court resultantly Criminal Appeal No. 105-DB/2007 was dismissed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. 9. This Court has constitutional power to review its judgment as granted by Article 137 of the Constitution which is subject to provisions of any law made by Parliament or any Rules made Under Article 145. Under Article 145 the Supreme Court has framed Rules, 1966 as noted above. As per Rule 1 of Order 40 an application for review in a criminal proceeding can be entertained on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. 10. Granting power of review to this Court by the Constitution is in recognition of the universal principle that the power of review is part of all judicial system. Rule 1 of Order 40 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provides for the procedure and manner in which the power of review can be exercised by this Court. The ambit and scope of power of review of this Court has come up for consideration time and again before this Court. Justice Krishna Iyer in Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheikh Hai, (1975) 1 SCC 674, held that to review of a judgment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in all proceedings. The Rule merely canalises the flow from the reservoir of power. The stream cannot stifle the source. Moreover, the dynamics of interpretation depend on the demand of the context and the lexical limits of the test. Here "record" means any material which is already on record or may, with the permission of the court, be brought on record. If justice summons the Judges to allow a vital material in, it becomes part of the record; and if apparent error is there, correction becomes necessitous. 35. The purpose is plain, the language is elastic and interpretation of a necessary power must naturally be expansive. The substantive power is derived from Article 137 and is as wide for criminal as for civil proceedings. Even the difference in phraseology in the Rule (Order 40 Rule 2) must, therefore, be read to encompass the same area and not to engraft an artificial divergence productive of anomaly. If the expression "record" is read to mean, in its semantic sweep, any material even later brought on record, with the leave of the court, it will embrace subsequent events, new light and other grounds which we find in Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. We see no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no Rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai AIR 1941 FC 1, the Court observed that even though no Rules had been framed permitting the highest court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Raj under Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh (1836) 1 Moo PC 117:2 MIA 181, that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered: ... nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, errors have been introduced, these courts possess, by common law, the same power which the courts of record and statute have of rectif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that two views on the same subject are possible is no ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength. 14. It was further held that mere possibility of two views on the same subject is not a ground for review. In paragraph 56 following was stated: 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review... 15. Further in Devender Pal Singh v. State, NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 501, Arijit Pasayat, J., elaborately examined the scope and ambit of review jurisdiction of this Court after referring to all earlier relevant judgments of this Court. In paragraph 11 following was stated: 11. Though the scope of review in criminal proceedings has been widened to a considerable extent, in view of the aforesaid exposition of law by the Constitutional Bench, in any case review is not rehearing of the appeal all over again, and as was obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record. In paragraphs 15 and 16 following was laid down: 15. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. This Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, 1997 (8) SCC 715, held as under: (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 7-9) 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372, this Court opined: (AIR p. 1377, para 11) 11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court in Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. 2005 (6) SCC 651, held as under: (SCC p. 656, para 10) 10.... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. The learned Counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review Petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne phone was handed over by the complainant in original to the Police. This Court in its judgment dated 25.01.2010 has referred to the aforesaid fact and has noted the said fact to the following effect: The cassette on which the conversations had been recorded on the landline was handed over by Ravi Verma to S.I. Jiwan Kumar and on a replay of the tape, the conversation was clearly audible and was heard by the Police. 24. The tape recorded conversation was not secondary evidence which required certificate Under Section 65B, since it was the original cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded, there cannot be any dispute that for admission of secondary evidence of electronic record a certificate as contemplated by Section 65B is a mandatory condition. In Anvar P.V. (supra) this Court had laid down the above proposition in paragraph 22. However, in the same judgment this Court has observed that the situation would have been different, had the primary evidence was produced. The conversation recorded by the complainant contains ransom calls was relevant Under Section 7 and was primary evidence which was relied on by the complainant. In paragraph 24 of the judgment of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 364A. 26. It is further contended that this Court had relied on the disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh, which led to the recovery of the dead body which disclosure statement does not connect Vikram Singh with the crime. The trial court as well as the High Court marshaled the ocular evidence by which evidence role of Vikram Singh was duly proved in commission of crime. Hence, this submission deserves to be rejected. 27. Lastly, Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior Counsel submits that this Court in paragraph 18 has recorded its conclusion that the finger prints of Vikram Singh were found on the Alto and Chevrolet cars, therefore, connection of Vikram Singh is established in the crime. It is submitted that since this Court recorded at para 18 that the said cars belong to Vikram Singh, the existence of finger prints cannot by itself be of any significance with regard to his culpability in the crime. It is submitted that by relying on finger prints, this Court had committed an apparent error on the face of the record. The above submission of learned Counsel is misconceived and incorrect. In para 18 of the judgment this Court never observed that Alto and Chevrolet cars belonged....