Decided on April 13,2012

Nand Kumar And Another Appellant


Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 574/2005, Nand Kumar & Another v. State, was finally adjudicated by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2012, whereby this petition was dismissed. Now, the present MCRC Application No. 248/2012 has been moved seeking recall of the said judgment and order. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the accused applicants as well as learned Counsel for the State.
(2.) FIRST and foremost contention of the learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants is that while passing the judgment and order, sought to be recalled, the accused applicants was not represented before this Court by a Counsel, well conversant with law. The petition was argued by Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate, who was holding the brief of Mr. H.C. Pathak, Advocate, for the applicants. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Mr. Pandey did not properly argue the matter, and failed to bring the correct position of law before this Court, and as a result thereof, the petition was dismissed. This Court is unable to accept the above submission of the learned Sr. Counsel, firstly, because it was a petition under Section 482 CrPC, and the main purpose of filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent any possible abuse of the process of law. It has been categorically laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases that while deciding a petition under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is not supposed to make a thorough and deep analysis of every aspect and complexities involved in the case. It is the job of trial court. This Court, under its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, is supposed only to prima facie see as to whether it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court if the prosecution were allowed to continue in the trial court. Besides, while passing the judgment and order dated 23.3.2012, this Court considered the relevant aspects which were crucial for adjudication of this petition. All the submissions advanced by the then arguing Counsel Mr. Pandey were duly dealt with and answered by this Court. Hence, it is not possible to recall the impugned judgment and order merely on the plea that Mr. Pandey was not well conversant with the law.
(3.) BE that as it may, the main question that arises at this stage is whether after finally adjudicating a petition under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is empowered to review the same on its merit;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.