2014 (5) TMI 488 - SC - Customs

Recall of order - Order once passed reviewed or modified - offence punishable under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act ) - Held that - We do not find any forcible submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that once the order had been dictated in open court, the order to review or recall is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that Section 362 Cr.P.C. puts an embargo to call, recall or review any judgment or order passed in criminal case once it has been pronounced and signed. In the instant case, admittedly, the order was dictated in the court, but had not been signed. - it is evident that a Judge s responsibility is very heavy, particularly, in a case where a man s life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture. Therefore, one cannot assume, that the Judge would not have changed his mind before the judgment become final - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of recalling an order in a criminal case before it is signed.
2. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for police constables accused of an offense.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenged the High Court's decision to recall an order allowing an appeal on a technical issue before it was signed. The Supreme Court held that Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. does not prohibit the court from recalling or reviewing an order if it has not been signed. Citing the case of Mohan Singh v. King-Emperor, the court emphasized that until a judgment is signed and sealed, it is not final. The court referred to judgments by various High Courts and reiterated that in exceptional circumstances, an order can be recalled and altered before being signed and sealed.

2. The case involved police constables accused of an offense while on duty. The High Court initially allowed the appeal on the basis that sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was required. However, the order was later recalled for further examination of whether the offense could be attributed to the performance of their duty. The Supreme Court, referring to previous judgments, emphasized the heavy responsibility of judges in cases affecting life and liberty. Citing the case of Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. The State of Maharashtra, the court held that a judgment is the final decision of the court and must be properly intimated to the parties. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the High Court in recalling the order for reexamination was deemed valid.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit based on the analysis of the issues surrounding the validity of recalling an order in a criminal case and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for police constables accused of an offense.