Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2012 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 304 - HC - Central ExciseApplication for recall of order Criminal Miscellaneous Case Condonation of delay Held that - Sri Virendra Bhatia (counsel) died in 2010 while the petition was dismissed seven years ago in the year 2003 - no explanation as to why the petitioner did not contact his counsel during seven years - Delay has not been satisfactorily explained - Court has specifically observed that it is not a case of abuse of the process of any court and not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such it cannot be said that Court has dismissed the case for non-prosecution - finding recorded by the Tribunal is not binding upon the criminal courts. As such it cannot be said that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal has the effect of wiping out the prosecution - this Court is not competent to recall the same. Consequently, both the applications are liable to be dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application for recalling an order passed by a judge. 2. Delay in moving the application. 3. Challenging a complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Legal implications of the order passed by the Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal. 5. Competency of the Court to recall an order passed on merits. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the consideration of two applications: one for recalling an order dated 29-7-2003 passed by Justice N.K. Mehrotra dismissing a case in the absence of counsel, and the other for condoning the delay in moving the recalling application. 2. The applicant sought to recall the order due to the previous counsel's inadvertence and subsequent death. However, the Court noted that the delay of seven years in contacting the counsel was not satisfactorily explained, and the order was not dismissed for non-prosecution but on merits. 3. The case involved a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a complaint and further proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The interim order stayed the proceedings pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. 4. The judgment discussed the legal implications of orders passed by the Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, which concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay any penalty. However, the Court clarified that these findings were not binding on criminal courts and did not wipe out the prosecution. 5. Lastly, the Court deliberated on its competency to recall an order passed on merits. It held that since the order was based on the merits of the case and not for non-prosecution, it could not be disturbed subsequently on a recall application. Therefore, both applications were dismissed accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the application for recalling an order, the delay in moving the application, the challenges under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the implications of orders passed by authorities, and the competency of the Court to recall orders passed on merits.
|