TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court in the case of VISHNU AGARWAL VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [ 2011 (2) TMI 1565 - SUPREME COURT] and order passed by this Court in the case of RASHIDABANU W/O MOHAMMAD ASIF MOHAMMAD HUSEN SINGWALA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [ 2017 (1) TMI 1777 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , learned advocate for the applicants has tried to canvas that under certain circumstances, order can be recalled by the Criminal Court. Thus, this Court would first of all like to examine the aforesaid two decisions. In the case of Vishnu Agarwal, an appeal was preferred before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in Criminal Revision Application. When the Criminal Revision Application was listed before the concerned High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... USTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Appearance: MR BM MANGUKIYA for the PETITIONER(s) No. MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) COMMON IA ORDER 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent State. 2. All these applications are filed by the concerned applicants for recalling of the common oral judgment dated 14.10.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.17697 of 2021 and allied matters. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya for the concerned applicants and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent State. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, there is no name of the applicants in the complaint filed against three different persons viz. Afzal Saujani, Mohammad Abbas Rafikali Meghani and Ms. Minaben Rangsinh Rathod. Thus, in the said complaints filed against those three persons, there is no reflection of any role of the applicants herein. Thus, when the aforesaid common judgment is rendered by this Court without adverting to all the factual matrix placed before this Court and the legal issues raised, the said common judgment be recalled. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has submitted that under Section 362 of the Code, this Court is not empowered to review its own judgment, however, under certain circumstances, order passed by the Criminal Court can be recalled. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court has kept the said material presently in a sealed cover with the Registrar Judicial, Supreme Court. Thus, this Court, after considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the applicants and the prosecution, has passed the common judgment dated 14.10.2021 and therefore the said judgment may not be recalled, as prayed for by the applicants. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that an order passed by the Criminal Court cannot be reviewed as per the provision contained in Section 362 of the Code. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that even as per the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the applicants, the order can be recalled under certain circumstances. However, the case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, when the order is passed in breach of principles of natural justice. 11. In the case of Vishnu Agarwal (supra), an appeal was preferred before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in Criminal Revision Application. When the Criminal Revision Application was listed before the concerned High Court, no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist, though the counsel for the respondents appeared and the concerned High Court passed an order. Subsequently, application was moved for recall of the order alleging that the case was shown in the computer list and not in the main list of the High Court, hence, learned counsel of the revisionist had not noted the case and hence he did not appear. While conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. Thereafter, in para 5 of the order, the provisions contained under Sections 39, 65, 66, 67, 73 and 74 of the GGST Act are also referred. In para 6, provisions of Section 69 and 70 of GGST Act are also referred. Thus, it is not correct on the part of the learned advocate for the applicants that this Court has not referred any provisions of law relied upon by the learned advocate. 14. This Court has also considered the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and also considered the separate compilation provided by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is a reference with regard to the complaints filed against four persons including one Mr. Afzal. The said aspect is referred in para 13 of the decision. This Court has also dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
