2022 (1) TMI 48 - HC - GST

Grant of pre-arrest bail - case of applicant is that the applicant raised several contentions in the applications filed by them, however, all the contentions are not dealt with - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that by way of filing the present applications, the applicants have tried to re-argue the case on merits. Learned advocate for the applicants has not disputed the fact that in view of the provision of Section 362 of the Code, Criminal Court is not having power to review its own judgment. However, by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon ble Supreme 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 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. It appears that learned advocate for the applicants has tried to re-argue the case by filing these applications for recalling of the order, which is not permissible. This Court is of the view that by way of filing these applications, applicants have indirectly requested this Court to review its own judgment, which is not permissible. If the aforesaid two decisions, upon which reliance is placed by learned advocate for the applicants, are carefully examined, it is revealed that the order can be recalled under certain circumstances only. In both the aforesaid cases, the orders were passed by the concerned Court in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore on that ground the orders were recalled. In the present case, it is not the case of the applicants that while passing the common judgment dated 14.10.2021, this Court has violated the principles of natural justice - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for recalling a common oral judgment dated 14.10.2021 passed by the Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.17697 of 2021 and allied matters.

Analysis:
1. The concerned applicants filed applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered with the office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement, Division-2, Ahmedabad. The Court rejected the applications through a common oral judgment dated 14.10.2021. The applicants sought the judgment's recall, arguing that not all their contentions were addressed, and certain legal provisions were not considered in the judgment.

2. The applicants' advocate contended that the judgment did not reflect all the factual matrix and legal issues raised during the hearing. They argued that certain complaints filed against other individuals did not implicate the applicants, and therefore, the judgment should be recalled. The advocate cited provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which were allegedly not considered in the judgment.

3. The applicants' advocate referenced Section 362 of the Code, stating that the Court could not review its own judgment but could recall an order under specific circumstances. They cited legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision and an order by the Court, to support their argument for the judgment's recall.

4. The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, arguing that the judgment adequately considered the facts, legal provisions, and submissions made during the hearing. They highlighted that the Court had examined a confidential compilation provided by the prosecution and that the Supreme Court had the relevant material in a sealed cover. The Public Prosecutor contended that the judgment should not be recalled as it did not meet the criteria for such a recall.

5. After considering the arguments from both sides and the legal precedents cited, the Court noted that the applicants were essentially attempting to re-argue the case on its merits through the recall applications. The Court examined the legal principles governing the recall of judgments and found that the applicants' case did not meet the criteria outlined in the legal precedents referenced.

6. The Court referenced specific cases where judgments were recalled due to violations of natural justice principles, which were not applicable in the present case. It emphasized that the applicants had not shown any such violation in the judgment dated 14.10.2021. Therefore, the Court concluded that the applications for recalling the judgment should be dismissed.