Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1460 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional power to review its judgment as granted by Article 137 of the Constitution - Rule 1 of Order 40 - Error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- Under Order 40 Rule 1 no application for review can be entertained except on the ground of an error apparent on the fact of the record. Although, the power of review given to this Court in wider as has been held by the Constitution Bench in P.N. Eshwara [1980 (2) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT], Justice Krishna Iyer has given an illustration where the Court will not hesitate in exercising its power to review in a case where deceased himself walks in the Court on whose murder Accused were convicted. Justice Krishna Iyer rightly observed that Court is not powerless to do justice in such case. Thus, although the power of review granted to this Court is wider but normally and ordinarily the review in a criminal case has to be on the grounds as enumerated in Rule 1 of Order 40. What is "an error apparent on the face of the record" has also been a subject matter of consideration by this Court in a large number of cases. What are the grounds on which this Court shall exercise its jurisdiction and what is the error apparent on the face of the record came to be considered by this Court in KAMLESH VERMA VERSUS MAYAWATI & ORS. [2013 (8) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT]. This Court held that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record. By review application an applicant cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on the grounds which were urged at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal. Even if the applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the conviction or sentence of the Accused that is not a sufficient ground for review. This Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in earlier decision due to judicial fallibility. There has to be error apparent on the face of the record leading miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction Under Article 137 read with Order 40 Rule 1. There has to be a material error manifest on the face of the record with results in the miscarriage of the justice. The submissions raised in the review petitions do not raise any ground for review of judgment of this Court dated 25.01.2010 - the review applications are rejected.
|