Back
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Sanjeev Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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 un
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....
Proposed accused must be heard in revision against Magistrate's rejection of Section 156(3) CrPC application; no prejudicial order without opportunity under Section 401(2), applicable to Sessions Jud....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
