Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1385
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.C.Jain
CHANDRA MUKHI
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 10 September 1999
Criminal Misc. Revision No. 1559 of 1984
Once an order is passed and there is evidence against the accused, the order cannot be recalled without justification.
Headnote:
Recall of Order - Criminal Procedure Code - The court held that once an order had been passed, it could not be recalled without justification. The court found that there was evidence against the accused and therefore the order recalling the earlier order was illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant challenged the court's order recalling an earlier order to summon an accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recall of the earlier order was unjustified as there was evidence against the accused, and therefore the recall order was illegal.
Issues: The issue was whether the court's recall of the earlier order to summon an accused was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once an order had been passed and there was evidence against the accused, the order could not be recalled without justification.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, quashed the recall order, upheld the earlier order, and directed the trial to proceed according to law.
Heard learned coun sel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. for opposite party No. 1-State.
2. The revisionist is the complainant in S. T. No. 474 of 1983 State v Jaipal under Section 302, IPC pending in the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh. P. W. 1 Chandramukhi and P. W. 2 Khachor Singh were examined in the case wherein the name of opposite party No. 3 Sohan Singh also figured as one of the culprits of the crime as the person who exhorted the main assailant Jaipal who murdered the deceased- Raghunath Singh. Thereafter, the State made an application under Sec tion 319, Cr. P. C. to summon Sohan Singh also as co-accused. By order dated 10-7-1984, the Court below allowed the said application made by the State under Sec tion 319, Cr. P. C. Thereafter, it recalled the earlier order dated 10-7-1984 by the impugned order dated 23-7-1984 on the ground that the earlier order had been obtained by the Reader without hearing the parties counsel. The complainant has challenged this order dated 23-7-1984 passed by the Court below.
3. Once the order dated 10-7-1984 had been passed, the same could not be recalled by the impugned order dated 23-7-1984. It is also found that Sohan Singh opposite party No. 3 did figure as one of the co- accused with the role on exhortation having been assigned to him as per state ments of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. In this view of the matter also, there could be no justifica tion for recalling the order dated 10-7-1984 by the impugned order dated 23-7-1984, When the evidence had come to be there in the statements of the above named two witnesses against opposite party No. 3 Sohan Singh, the Court could proceed against him as per provisions of Section 319, Cr PC. The order dated 23-7-1984 passed by the Court below is patently il legal.
4. The revision is allowed. The order dated 23-7-84 in question is quashed. The earlier order dated 10-7- 84 passed by the Court below shall hold good and the ses sions trial in question shall proceed fur ther according to law. The stay order dated 2-8-1984 stands vacated. The trial being of year 1984, it shall be expedited by the Court below.
5. The office shall send a copy of this order to the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh for needful action as per law.
Revision allowed.
.
