This single-judge Court dismissed a criminal application seeking to recall its own prior judgment that upheld the conviction of the applicant. The Court held it would not sit in appeal of its own judgment and noted no error required correction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
appw.197-2012.sxw
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 197 OF 2012 IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2489 OF 2010
Mr.Omprakash Jhunjhunwala
..Applicant.
Vs.
Prabhat Ramrichpal Jhunjhunwala & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr. Vilas A. Jadhav with Mr. P.D. Sampat, for the Applicant. Mr. C.K. Pendse, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for State.
CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.
DATE : 5th November, 2012.
P.C.:
1 Heard extensively.
2 Criminal Case No.154/SW/2009 was moved before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai for an offence under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. by the
2
appw.197-2012.sxw
Petitioner against the Respondents, alleging that they have misappropriated the funds of the Company and fraudulently fabricated certain documents with forged signature and committed illegal activities.
3 Verification was recorded on 23.1.2008. Police Report was called. Police informed that the matter was of civil nature. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.2.2009 rejected the Complaint. The matter was carried to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Initially the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the orders of the learned M.M. Thereafter the order was carried by the Respondents to this Court and this Court on 18.1.2010 directed the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the Respondents and pass appropriate orders in the Revision. Consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave fresh hearing to the Respondents and the Petitioner, and confirmed the orders of C.M.M. Dated 21.2.2009. In Writ Petition No.2489 of 2010 challenge to the said order did not yield result.
3
appw.197-2012.sxw
4 This Court (Coram: B.R. Gavai, J.) on 29.6.2011 upheld the
order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present Application for recalling the order referred above recorded by this Court.
5 Several features are advanced by the learned Counsel representing the Petitioner, which need not be discussed as they relates to merits of the matter and the case Petitioner proposes to canvass. The short point before this Court is, when an effective hearing was given on 29.6.2011 to the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and the order is recorded, can it be said to be the order passed without application of mind.
6 This Court, is not sitting in appeal of the order recorded by this Court on 29.6.2011 (Coram: B.R. Gavai, J.). This Court is not expected to criticize the same. The Petitioner has efficacious remedy before appropriate forum which Petitioner successfully killed the time in prosecuting the matter before this court.
4
appw.197-2012.sxw
7 Repeated reference to jurisdictional error and to refer the
matter to the Division Bench, has no bearing, it need not be entertained to allow to be further coin. No situation to recall the order of this Court, as I do not see any error in it to be corrected by this Court. Hence, Application
is dismissed.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal application under Article 226 for recalling a judgment of this Court passed after an effective hearing can succeed based on allegations of jurisdictional error.
Whether any error exists in the prior order which justifies recalling the judgment rendered by this Court itself.
Omprakash Jhunjhunwala
Prabhat Ramrichpal Jhunjhunwala & Ors.
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
