Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1023
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
Suresh Kumar
Versus
State, rep. by Inspector of Police
CRL.O.P.No.6512 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on : 24-03-2008
For the Petitioner:R. Sankara Subbu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A. Saravanan, G.A.
The main legal point established is that once a judgment or final order is passed, it cannot be reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, as per section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Passport Act - Criminal Proceedings - 12(1)(A) of the Passport Act, 472, 473, 475 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 109 of the Indian Penal Code - Sections 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - 2001 SCC (Cri) 113, 2001 SCC (Cri) 808, 2005 (2) MWN (Cr.)(FB) 109 (Cal.), 2008(1) Supreme 513, 2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings against him for possessing fake Passport and fake Indian Visa. The Chemical Examiner found the Passport and Indian Visa to be genuine, leading the court to quash the criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner possessed genuine Passport and Indian Visa, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner possessed fake Passport and fake Indian Visa, and the applicability of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for review of the final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once a judgment or final order is passed, it cannot be reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, as per section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court cited several precedents to support this principle.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plea for review and upheld the quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Heard both sides.
2. This petition is filed seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner, who has been ranked as A.1 in Crime No.1849 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police.
3. The sole allegation as against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of fake Passport and fake Indian Visa to travel to India. The respondent police having suspected the bona fides of the petitioner, chose to refer those two documents found in possession of the petitioner to the Chemical Examiner, who has returned a finding that as far as the Passport and Indian Visa alleged to have been found in possession of the petitioner are concerned, they are genuine. Of course, the Chemical Analysist has gone beyond the brief and stated that the New Zealand Visas are found to be suspicious, which will have to be confirmed from the New Zealand mission concerned.
4. Weare not concerned with the fabrication or the forgery of any New Zealand Visas. The question is whether the petitioner possesses Indian Passport and Indian Visa for the purpose of entering into our land. It is only the look out of the New Zealand Government, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to probe into the veracity of the New Zealand Visas found in possession of the petitioner herein.
5. As there is a telling testimony in the form of report emanated from the Chemical Examiner to the effect that the petitioner possessed genuine Passport and Indian Visa, this Court finds that the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner have to be quashed. In view of the above, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner in Crime No.1849 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police are quashed and the criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected petition is closed.
The matter was taken up for hearing on being mentioned after the final order was passed in the main Criminal Original Petition No.6512 of 2008.
2. The petitioner, who is accused of offences punishable under sections 12(1)(A) of the Passport Act and 472, 473, 475 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, moved the Criminal Original Petition No.6512 of 2008 seeking quashment. The court, having heard the submissions made on either side, chose to allow the petition seeking quashment and as a result of which the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner in Crime No.1849 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police were quashed.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) sought permission to post this matter for being mentioned. Accordingly, the matter came up for hearing before this court and the submissions made on either side were heard.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a bar under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to review the final order passed by this court. Therefore, the question of re-opening the case which has already reached finality does not arise, he would submit.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the gravity of the charges as against the petitioner and the seizure of fake seals from the custody of the petitioner were not properly highlighted during the course of final hearing of Criminal Original Petition No.6512 of 2008 for want of proper instructions from the respondent police and that therefore, the order passed by this court will have to be reviewed.
6. A Bench of this court in ARUNACHALAM, K.K. v. K.NALLUSAMY (1995-2-LW 456) has heavily come down upon the manner of posting the cases "for being mentioned" when such a procedure was not justified by any of the provision of law. The party cannot prescribe a procedure of his own and have the matter mentioned in the court orally and bring it once again for fresh consideration. Therefore, the matter cannot be taken up under the caption "for being mentioned", it has been observed therein.
7. It is relevant to refer to the pro
