Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Rajendra Prasad Arya, Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Bihar, Respondent.
Petn(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3063 of 1999, D/- 28-2-2000.
Ms. Upasana Dubey, Advocate for S. R. Setia, Advocate, for Petitioner; B. B. Singh, Advocate, for Respondent.
Cri. M. No.13745 of 1998, D/- 17-5-1999 (Patna)
Bail - Correction of Order - Accused - Opportunity of Hearing
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a bail application, which was rejected by the trial Judge. However, due to a mistake in the order-sheet, it was indicated that the accused had been released on bail. The Court later recalled the incorrect order and directed the trial Judge to bring the petitioner into custody without hearing the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the accused was not heard before the correction of the order, and therefore quashed the order dated 17-5-1999, stating that the accused should have been given an opportunity of hearing before making any alteration/correction in the order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Court ought to have heard the accused before making necessary corrections in the order-sheet dated 21-7-1998.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that while it has the power to rectify any mistake, in a situation where the accused has already been released pursuant to an earlier order, the accused ought to have been heard before making any alteration/correction in the order.
Final Decision: The order dated 17-5-1999 was quashed, and it was directed that the High Court could make necessary rectification/correction by giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused.
ORDER :- The accused is the petitioner in the present case and had filed an application for being released on bail while the matter is still pending before the trial Judge. On 21-7-1998, it appears, the Court rejected his prayer for bail. But, unfortunately in the order-sheet of the proceeding it was indicated that the accused has been released on bail and pursuant to that order, in fact, the accused was released on bail.
2. Later on the Court came to know of a wrong order having been incorporated and recalled the earlier order passed on 21-7-1998 and incorporated the correct order, namely, refusing the prayer for bail and directing the trial Judge to bring the petitioner into custody. On 17-5-1999 when the Court recalled the earlier order dated 21-7-1998, admittedly the accused was not heard. The only question for consideration is whether the Court ought to have heard the accused on that date before making necessary corrections in the order-sheet dated 21-7-1998. There is no dispute with the proposition that the Court has always the power to rectify any mistake committed by it. But since the accused has already been released pursuant to an earlier order incorporated in the order-sheet, the accused ought to have been heard before making any alteration/correction in the order in question.
3. Since the accused was not heard 3537 before making the correction by order dated 17-5-1999, we quash the said order dated 17-5-1999. It would be open for the High Court to make necessary rectification/correction by giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused. This Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
FOR CITATION: AIR 2000 SC 3536
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
