Allowed

Nanuram Saini S/O Mangal Chand Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2021CRLMA/13/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to expunge adverse remarks in an order where an applicant was held in ignorance of a 2003 anticipatory bail grant. The court relied on the absence of an opinion hearing and Section 362 Cr.P.C. restrictions to allow expunging the remarks and recalling certain directions.

What did the court decide?

Adverse observations against the applicant were expunged, and directions to the Registrar (Vigilance) were deleted and recalled.

Nanuram Saini S/O Mangal Chand Saini Vs State of Rajasthan — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CRLMA-13/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13/2021

¶5

Nanuram Saini S/o Mangal Chand Saini, Aged About 90 Years, R/o Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj)

¶6

Vinod Kumar S/o Lt. Onkarmal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu Presently R/o D113, Sector-II-A, Post Khetri Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

Vimal Kumar S/o Onkarmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order

¶14

12/02/2021

¶15

This is a misc. application moved on behalf of the applicant who was holding the post of ACJM, Khetri, seeking to delete the adverse remarks made in the order dated 9.11.2020 passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.4317/2020.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant had passed an order issuing non-bailable warrants after taking cognizance on remand of the case from the High Court on a protest petition.

¶17

Till the date of taking cognizance and issuance of warrants, neither the investigating authority nor the final report submitted by the police, the applicant was informed of their being anticipatory bail granted by the High Court wayback in 2003. The

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CRLMA-13/2021]

¶20

application which was moved under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the applicant relying on provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. which restricted court to review its own order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the Magistrate may be erroneous, however, it cannot be said that she was having knowledge of grant of anticipatory bail at the time of issuing of warrants.

¶21

Learned counsel has also taken this court to the judgment in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others 2004 (7) SCC 338 to submit that the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. put an embargo on a Magistrate to recall its earlier order. Although, learned counsel submits that under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C, the provision of 362 Cr.P.C. may not have any application. However he submits that in the facts of the case the remarks made in the order were not called forwarded need to be expunged. Since the applicant had taken a view in terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C. alone. The applicant petitioner had no intention to show disrespect to High Court’s order and adherence remarks may be expunged.

¶22

I have considered the submissions.

¶23

The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others (2011) 14 SCC 770 has observed as

¶24

under:-

¶25

“44. There is no power of review with the criminal court after Judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362, Cr.P.C. is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error.

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CRLMA-13/2021]

¶28

There is also no provision for modification of the judgment.

¶29

Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362, Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the Judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482. Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same.

¶30

If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of Court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362, Cr. P.C. would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault.”

¶31

As the observations are made without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the power of recall to the extent is available with this court.

¶32

After having gone through the order passed by this court which is sought to be recalled, as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate applicant, this court finds that the applicant without having knowledge about the grant of anticipatory bail, proceeded to decide the application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. solely on basis of embargo contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C. This court is satisfied that order of grant of anticipatory bail passed in 2003 was not on record while passing the order of issuing non-bailable warrants and taking cognizance on a protest petition. Thus, apparently the order passed is in ignorance of the High Court’s order.

¶33

I am also satisfied that remarks passed by this court were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and the principle of audi-alteram partem was not adhered to. Supreme Court in the case of AR Antulay Vs. RS Naik & Ors.

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CRLMA-13/2021]

¶36

1987 AIR SC 1140 had recalled its earlier order of initiating criminal proceedings on aforesaid grounds.

¶37

Keeping in view the said principle and taking into consideration law as laid down by Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra). I am inclined to allow this application and direct to expunge part of observations as made against the learned Magistrate applicant. Accordingly the directions to the Registrar (Vigilance) would also stand deleted and recalled.

¶38

The application is accordingly allowed.

¶39

Copy of the order be sent to the office of Registrar (Vigilance).

¶40

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶41

ashu /65

Nanuram Saini S/O Mangal Chand Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanuram Saini S/O Mangal Chand Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hansraj Meena Son of Kaluram Meena Vs Union of India

Baijanti Bai Meena D/O Late Fatta Ram Meena W/O Ram Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhaju Lal Sharma Son of Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary

Rekha Ram Regar S/O Shri Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan

Manisha Arya D/O Shri Bhagwaddayal Vs State of Rajasthan