9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a judgment given in the absence of the appellant or his counsel but decided on merits can be recalled by the Court under its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the judgment given in the absence of the appellant or his counsel but decided on merits, can be recalled by the Court under its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Preliminary Objections: - Objection on Reference Validity: It was argued that the reference to the larger bench was unnecessary as the referring judge had already agreed with a previous judgment, thus expressing a definite opinion. However, the Court held that despite the agreement, the judge had the right to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for a larger bench's consideration. - Objection on Language of the Question: The use of the word "or" instead of "and" in the reference question was challenged. The Court clarified that the question related to cases where neither the appellant nor his counsel was present, and thus the word "and" could be read instead of "or." Legal Provisions and Interpretations: - Section 362, Cr.P.C.: This section imposes a complete bar on altering or reviewing a judgment or final order, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Court had to consider whether this bar applies even when the judgment was passed without hearing the accused. - Section 482, Cr.P.C.: This section preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court had to determine if these inherent powers could override the prohibition in Section 362. Arguments for Recalling Judgment: - Inherent Powers: It was argued that the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are broad enough to recall a judgment if it was passed without giving the accused a chance to be heard, as this would secure the ends of justice. - Distinction Between Review and Recall: The Court was urged to distinguish between reviewing/altering a judgment and recalling it. Recalling a judgment would mean complete abrogation, not merely correcting errors. - Principle of Natural Justice: The right to be heard is fundamental, and denying this right would violate the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution. Precedents and Judicial Opinions: - Support for Recalling Judgments: Various cases and judgments were cited where courts had recalled judgments to ensure justice, emphasizing the importance of hearing the accused or their counsel. - Opposition to Recalling Judgments: Other cases emphasized that Section 362, Cr.P.C. imposes a strict bar on altering or reviewing judgments, and inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent this prohibition. Court's Conclusion: - Power of Recall: The Court concluded that recalling a judgment is different from reviewing or altering it. Recalling a judgment means completely abrogating it and rehearing the case. - Exercise of Inherent Powers: The Court held that inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised to recall a judgment if the accused was not given a hearing, provided the case falls within the conditions laid down in Section 482. - Principles of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that the right to be heard is a fundamental right, and denying this right would violate principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution. Final Answer to the Reference: 1. The power of recall is different from the power of altering or reviewing the judgment. 2. Powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can and should be exercised by the Court to recall a judgment if the hearing was not given to the accused, provided the case meets one of the three conditions laid down under Section 482.
|
