MAIN POINT
Contention of lack of competent legal representation provided to the petitioner/applicant at trial stage cannot be accepted at the belated stage of review.

ORDER

1. This application has been filed by the petitioner before us with the prayer to reopen the Review Petition (Crl.) No. 395 of 2014 and grant the petitioner an open hearing before a three Judge Bench of this Court in light of the decision of this Court in Mohd. Arif and others v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors.(Writ Petition(Crl.) No. 77 of 2014) delivered on 02.09.2014.

2. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohd Arif case (supra) has carved out a separate niche of review petitions in cases where death penalty has been confirmed by this Court and held that limited oral hearing of such petitions is mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in conclusion has observed as under:

“74. We make it clear that the law laid down in this judgment, viz., the right of a limited oral hearing in review petitions where death sentence is given, shall be applicable only in pending review petitions and such petitions filed in future. It will also apply where a review petition is already dismissed but the death sentence is not executed so far. In such cases, the Petitioners can apply for the reopening of their review petition within one month from the date of this judgment. However, in those cases where even a curative petition is dismissed, it would not be proper to reopen such matters.”

3. In the present application, keeping in view the urgency of matter, we had stayed the operation of Death Warrant of the petitioner/applicant which was to be executed on 08.09.2014 at 5 a.m., by order dated 08.09.2014 at 1 a.m. and posted the matter before us for consideration and decision.

4. In light of the aforesaid observations of this Court in Mohd. Arif case (supra), the prayer sought for by the petitioner/applicant is allowed.

5. We have heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/applicant. Shri Jethmalani would fervently contend that there exists a glaring error on the face of record in the instant case and therefore, this case requires to be treated as exceptional and extraordinary requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction. Shri Jethmalani would state that had the accused person been provided with a well experienced advocate during the Trial, the present conviction and sentence would neither have been recorded by the Trial Court nor confirmed by the appellate Courts. The case, according to him, would have reached a different conclusion.

6. We have perused the judgment and order passed by this Court and other relevant documents before us as pointed out by the learned senior counsel.

7. It is well settled that the scope of a Review Petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India is very limited and cannot be equated to that of an appeal. The Review Petitions can be allowed by this court only on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record subject to such an error being pointed out by the parties and this Court being satisfied that such an error is so manifest in the face of the order that it undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice requiring consideration and interference by this Court. While considering scope of review petitions, in Kamalesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320; M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 and Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 amongst others, this Court has cautioned that finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered on the aforesaid ground unless the Court is satisfied that a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

8. Having gone through the judgment and order of this Court and having appreciated the arguments canvassed before us, we are satisfied that the arguments canvassed before us do not present compelling circumstances so as to indicate error apparent on the face of record. In respect of the submission made by Shr