IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Sanjeev Gupta - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 9431 OF 2024.
Decided On : 30-05-2024
JUDGMENT
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
Instant recall application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to restore the Criminal Revision No.2618 of 2019, Sanjeev Gupta v. State of U.P. and another by recalling the order dated 6.12.2023 and 19.11.2023, passed in the said case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts relevant for the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are that the by means of criminal revision, the revisionist/ accused assailed the judgement of learned A.C.J.M., court no. 8, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 75 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime no. 331 of 2013 under Sections 498-A, 323, 377 IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad, whereby the revisionist has been convicted of charge under section 498-A, 323, 377 IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 30,000/- fine for charge under Section 498-A IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 20,000/- fine for charge under Section 377 IPC, six months simple imprisonment and Rs. 500/- for charge under Section 323 IPC and one year simple imprisonment and Rs. 1,500/- fine for charge under section 4 D.P. Act and sentences of fine are followed by default stipulation; all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 50% fine is directed to be paid as compensation to the victim/ informant. The revisionist assailed judgement of trial court in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2018 (Sanjeev Gupta v. State of UP) wherein criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent that conviction for charge under section 498-A, 323, 377 IPC has been affirmed but his conviction and sentence for charge under section 4 of D.P. Act has been set aside. The sentence awarded by the trial court for charge under section 377 IPC has been modified to the extent that five years rigorous imprisonment for charge under section 377 IPC is reduced to four years keeping in view quantum of fine intact. The revisionist impugned both the orders passed by the courts below in criminal revision before this Court, which has been preferred under section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
3. The applicant in person appeared in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 22.3.2024, 14.5.2024 and the matter was finally heard on 10.5.2024, wherein the applicant, who is accused/convict in concerned criminal revision No.2618 of 2019 argued in person and learned AGA appearing for the State has advanced his arguments on behalf of the State.
4. The applicant filed his written submissions in support of his contention raised in present application. The crux of the submissions of applicant is that he was not heard in person in said in said criminal revision and it was decided to his detriment as his conviction recorded under Section 498-A and 323 IPC by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate/session court has been re-affirmed by final order of this Court dated 6.12.2023, which is under challenged in present petition. He further submitted that at the time of hearing of revision on 27.5.2023, he was personally not present before this Court as he was held in jail custody and no intimation for appearance in the Court was given to him by this Court and, therefore, the opportunity of hearing accorded to the revisionist is empty formality due to non affording opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant, in person. He has been prejudicially affected as the bail granted to him in said criminal revision was cancelled by order dated 19.11.2022 and he was sent to jail custody. No personal appearance was afforded to him in said criminal revision by the Court for arguing the case despite written communications sent by him from jail. This Court was pleased to pass an order dated 15.5.2023 to the effect that "Office is directed to inform the revisionist immediately through Jail Authorities by Fax/e-mail about the order to engage an advocate of his choice till the next date of listing." On 27.7.2023, an o
The court upheld that representation by Amicus Curiae suffices for fair hearing, dismissing the recall application for lack of legal grounds.
The court clarified that a dismissal for default does not amount to a final order, allowing recall and reinstatement for hearings on merits under inherent powers of the High Court.
Petitions dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a bona fide reason for absence, circumventing the prohibition of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
A court cannot review its own judgment once signed, except to correct clerical errors, and inherent powers to recall judgments are limited to jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.
A convicted individual must surrender before the court to maintain a revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as per the Allahabad High Court Rules.
The High Court lacks the power to review or recall its orders after they have been signed, as it becomes functus officio and such actions are barred under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The judgment establishes the jurisdiction of High Courts to recall their own orders and the consequences of misusing bail, emphasizing the importance of post bail conduct in bail cancellation decisio....
A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution without addressing the merits; the High Court cannot alter its judgment post-signature except for clerical errors.
An application for recall of judgment is maintainable as a procedural review, but the specific bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. prevents the court from reviewing a judgment passed on merit after hearing....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.