LexKUSHALBHAI RATANBHAI ROHIT & ORS. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 743 KUSHALBHAI RATANBHAI ROHIT & ORS. v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.453 of 2014) MAY 6, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] A B Judgments/Orders - Recall of - Change/alteration in judgment before it is signed and sealed - Permissibility - C Criminal case against petitioner-police constables•- Matter came up before High Court in criminal appeal- High Court took the view that sanction of the State Government uls. 197 CrPC was necessarily required, and in view thereof, the order was dictated in open court allowing the appeal on technical D issue - However, subsequently, the .order dictated in open court and acquitting the petitioners was recalled by the court suo moto vide and the appeal directed to be re-heard - Order recalled on the ground that the court wanted to examine the issue further as· to whether in the facts and circumstances of E the case where the accused had been police constables, the offence could not be attributed to have been committed under the commission of their duty where sanction uls.197 Cr.P.C. would be attracted - Held: No merit in the submission advanced on behalf 'of the petitioners that once the order had F been dictated in open court, the order to review or recall is not permissible in view of the provisions of s.362 CrPC - s.362 CrPC puts an embargo to call, recall or review anyjudgment or order passed in criminaj case once. it has been pronounced and signed - In the instant case, admittedly, the G 1 order was dictated in the court, but had not been signed - A Judge's responsibility is very heavy, particularly, in a case i where a man's Ide and liberty hang upon his decision nothing , can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture - One cannot, 743 H 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A therefore, assume, that the Judge would not have changed his mind before the judgment become final - No exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by the High Court in the instant case - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 222 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.362. B Sangam Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad & Ors. AIR 1966 All. 221; Surendra Singh & Ors. v. State bf U.P. AIR 1954 SC 194: 1954 SCR 330 and Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 c SC 1880: 1975 (1) SCR 710 - referred to. Mohan Singh v. King-Emperor 1943 ILR (Pat) 28; Amodini Dasee v. Darsan· Ghose 1911 ILR (Cal) 828; Emperor v. Pragmadho Singh 1932 ILR (All.) 132; State of Bombay v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. AIR 1951 Born. 49 - D referred to. ' Case Law reference : 1943 ILR (Pat) 28 referred to Para 5 E 1911 ILR (Cal) 828 referred to Para 6 1932 ILR (All.) 132 referred to Para 6 AIR 1951 Born. 49 referred to Para 6 AIR 1966 All. 221 referred to Para 7 F 1954 SCR 330 referred to Para 8 1975 (1) SCR 710 referred to Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave G Petition (Crl.) No.453 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.12.2013 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2012 of 2006. H KUSHALBHAI RATANBHAI ROHIT v. THE STATE OF 745 GUJARAT. Fakhruddin, Kalap Raichura, Haresh Raichura for the A Petitioners. Anurag Ahluwalia, Prasant Ghai, Hernantika Wahi, Jesal for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered ORDER B 1. This petition has been filed against the interim order dated 27.12.2013, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at C Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.2012 of 2006. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are A. That an FIR C.R. No.60 of 2001 was registered at o Amraiwadi Police Station~ Ahmedabad against one Mahalingam alias Shiva for the offence punishable under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). Pursuant to the said FIR, case commenced which was committed to the Sessions Court, E Bhadra, Ahmedabad and the trial commenced. B. On 4.8.2003, Shiva, accused who was detained at Vadodara Central Jail, was required to be taken to the Sessions Court at Bhadra, ·Ahmadabad and for that purpose an escort was arranged, however, the case was adjourned and the accused while going back was taken for a cup of tea to the F Tea stall outside the court compound. Subsequent thereto, he expressed the desire to see his ailing mother and the escort persons tried to find the auto-rickshaw but the escort persons started na
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.