CALLA, J. - (1.) THIS review petition has been filed by 'the Bar Association, Jaipur, Civil Courts' Building, Bani Park, Jaipur, (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), seeking the review of the order dated 31. 3. 1993 passed in D. B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3184/1991 i. e. , Rajasthan High Court vs. Radha Mohan Lal and another.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defect No. 1 that there is no specific provision of review under the Cr. P. C. is a matter of argument. Regarding defect No. 2 i. e. , want of typed copies of impugned order, Shri Jain has prayed that the same may be waived. Defect No. 2 is accordingly waived. The petitioner claims to be the Bar Association, Jaipur which is a registered Association of the Advocates who are practising in civil courts, Bani Park, Jaipur as has been stated in para 1 of the review petition. In para 4 of the review petition it has been stated as under: - "the members of the applicant association are directly affected and interested and also aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment because the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is applicable and binding upon the lower courts. The members of the petitioner Association are enrolled with the Bar Council and under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. They have every right to put and defend the case of their clients and it is their day today work to file transfer applications before the various Courts. It is submitted that even in statute itself whether the civil or criminal, where there is no provision for the court to decide the transfer applications looking to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. However, in case this view is allowed to be perpetuated then it may have the consequences that the Advocates may not able to believe to defend the case properly in an apprehension that their right may not amount to contempt as per the decision given by this Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner Association is an Association of the Advocates and thus the petitioner Association has every right and aggrieved to challenge and/or to file this present review petition to review the order dated 31. 03. 1993 before this Hon'ble High Court. " In our view, the cases in which the transfer applications are filed before the higher court stand on an entirely different footing. The order sought to be reviewed in this petition has been passed in a case where the transfer application was filed before the same Judge, containing allegations impeaching his impartiality to render justice and the loss of faith. The apprehension of the petitioner as stated in para 4 of this review petition, is therefore, wholly misconceived. Shri Narendra Jain argued with reference to Article 215 of the Constitution of India and submitted that as in the case of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court can review its own order in exercise of its inherent powers u/article 215 of the Constitution of India and cited the following cases : - (1) Khetrabasi Mohanty vs. State of Orissa and others (1 ). It was a case of wilful violation of court's order in a writ case and in our opinion has no application to a case of criminal contempt of present nature. (2) Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others In this case, the order of allotment in favour of 'b' was set aside in a petition filed by 'a' without impleading 'b' as party; while 'b' was necessary party and ought to have been a party, hence, the review filed by 'b' was entertained. (3) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others It was again a writ case in which the Supreme Court has held that the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after due exercise of diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. (4) Habu vs. State of Rajasthan (4) (Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court ). In this full bench decision it has been held that power to recall is different than review and the power u/s 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised to recall if the judgment was given in breach of principles of natural justice. (5) Devkaran vs. State In this case a single bench of this Court has held that an order made by High Court in a criminal revision can be recalled to meet the ends of justice u/s 482 Cr. P. C. when there is a factual error apparent on the face of the record. (6) D. B. Criminal Review Petition (Defect) No. 406/92 in D. B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2631/1987 Anand Sharma vs. Advocate General. This matter is pending before the Division Bench and the review has not been filed by any third party. Thus, in our view, none of these cases is an authority for the preposition that any third party has a right to file and maintain a review petition in criminal contempt matters of the present nature.
(3.) IT is a case in which two individuals have been punished by the division bench for criminal contempt. The petitioner association has no right to file and maintain the review petition. In Simaranjeet Singh Maan vs. Union of India (6), the Apex Court has held as under: - "ordinarily, the aggrieved party which is affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an insane person or is suffering from any other disability which the law recognises as sufficient to permit another person e. g. next friend, to move the Court on his behalf. If a guardian or a next friend initiates proceedings for and on behalf of such a disabled aggrieved party, it is in effect proceedings initiated by the party aggrieved and not by a total stranger who has no direct personal stake in the outcome thereof. In the present case no fundamental right of the petitioner before us is violated; if at all the case sought to be made out is that the fundamental rights of the two convicts have been violated. The two convicts could, if so minded, have raised the contention in the earlier proceedings but a third party, a total stranger to the trial commenced against the two convicts, cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the conviction recorded against them. If that were permitted any and every person could challenge convictions recorded day in and day out by courts even if he persons convicted do not desire to do so and are inclined to acquiesce in the decision. If the aggrieved party invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, that may stand on a different footing as in the case of A. R. Antulay V. R. S. Nayaka. However, we should not be understood to say that in all such cases the aggrieved party has a remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution. Unless an aggrieved party is under some disability recognised by law, it would be unsafe and hazardous to allow any third party to question the decision against him. Take for example a case where a person accused under Section 302, IPC is convicted for a lesser offence under Section 324, IPC. The accused is quite satisfied with the decision but a third party questions it under Article 32 and succeeds. The conviction is set aside and a fresh trial commenced ends up in the conviction of the accused under Section 302, IPC. The person to suffer for the unilateral act of the third party would be the accused. Many such situations can be pointed out to emphasise the hazard involved if such third party's unsolicited action is entertained. Cases which have ended in conviction by the apex court after a full gamut of litigation are not comparable with preventive detention cases where a friend or next of kin is permitted to seek a writ of habeas corpus. We are, therefore, satisfied that neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. On first principles we find it difficult to accept Mr. Sodhi's contention that such a public interest litigation commenced by a leader of a recognised political party who has a genuine interest in the future of the convicts should be entertained. " In this very judgment, their lordships of the Supreme Court have also referred to the observations made in paragraph 45 of the judgment in the case of Janta Dal vs. H. S. Choudhary (7) and the relevant observations from para 45, which have been quoted in para 8 of the decision in Simranjeet Singh Maan's case (supra) are as under : - "even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. " In Sampat Singh vs. State of Haryana (8), the contention with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners, as is found in para 4 of the judgment, was answered by the Supreme Court in para 5, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under : - "these petitioners were not at all parties to the earlier proceedings at any stage. Hence, notwithstanding the above submission, we unreservedly hold that these petitioners have no locus standi to approach this Court for the reliefs sought for in this petition. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Janta Dal vs. V. H. S. Choudhary and Simaranjit Singh Maan V. Union of India. " ;