Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI
Laxman – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recall of judgment under specific conditions. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding absence and representation rights. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's duty in absence of appellant. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. review powers of courts under section 362 of crpc. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 5. finality of judgment and effects of non-appearance. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. dismissal of recall application. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Order on Criminal Misc. Recall Application along with Delay Condonation Application
1. Heard Mr. Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
2. The present application along with delay condonation application has been filed by the applicant/appellant under Section Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 17.3.2025, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1876 of 1983 whereby this Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment was passed in the absence of the appellant, treating him as an absconder despite the appeal being admitted and the
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.
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.
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.
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.
The court upheld that representation by Amicus Curiae suffices for fair hearing, dismissing the recall application for lack of legal grounds.
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to set aside ex-parte orders without following proper procedure in the original case.
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....
(1) Review/recall of order passed in a criminal proceeding – Section 362 of Cr.P.C. explicitly prohibits court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of case from altering or revie....
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
