The judgment highlighted the limited scope for review of judgments on procedural grounds and the criteria for rectifying clerical errors under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CRL.M.A.18555/2023 (For Recall of the Judgment dated 26.06.2023) IN CRL.A.622/2019 by applicant Mahesh Mishra

CRL.M.A.18568/2023 (For Recall of the Judgment dated 26.06.2023) IN CRL.A.624/2019 by applicant Hindveer Singh

1. The two appellants i.e. Shri Mahesh Mishra and Shri Hindveer Singh vide their aforementioned applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C have sought recalling of the judgment dated 26.06.2023, in so far as it affirms the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants on the issue of sentence.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants in their respective application that vide judgment dated 14.03.2019 and Order on Sentence dated 20.03.2019 learned ASJ, FTC/E-Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi had convicted and sentenced the accused Mahesh Mishra and Hindveer Singh. The arguments were heard on behalf of all the parties and the Court reserved the appeals for judgment on 19.05.2023. The appeals were dismissed vide Order dated 26.06.2023. It is submitted that no opportunity had been given to the appellant to address the arguments and tender material on the point of sentence which is evident from the bare perusal of the judgment, wherein all the submissions on merit have been detailed in the judgment but there is not a single submission on the aspect of sentence that has been mentioned. It is further explained that the arguments on the quantum of sentence were last heard by the Trial Court on 20.03.2019. Much water has flown under the bridge since then. The sentence of the applicants was suspended during the pendency of the appeals and they both have since then being reinstated by the U.P. Police and are holding a position of responsibility with excellent track record which is borne by their respective Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the last four years.

3. It is asserted that there is a distinction between review of judgment on merits (also called `substantive review') and Review of the judgment on procedural grounds (also called `procedural review'). The present application only seeks the indulgence of the Court to be afforded an opportunity to address the arguments on sentence.

4. A prayer is, therefore, made to recall the portion of judgment dated 26.06.2023 more specifically paragraph No.12 (a) in so far as it upholds the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court without affording an opportunity to the appellants to address arguments on this aspect.

5. Submissions heard.

6. The record reveals that the appeals had been filed by the two applicants against their conviction under Section 304/34 IPC in which they have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months; under Section 220 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months; under Section 365/34 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months; under Section 167 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

7. Criminal Appeals had been preferred by both the appellants which were against their conviction and sentence. The arguments were duly addressed on their respective appeals against conviction and sentence and thereafter vide impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 the appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentence was upheld.

8. It has been claimed by the appellants that they should have been given an opportunity for addressing the arguments on sentence. However, as per their own submissions, they had submitted their arguments on merits as well as on order on sentence.