The Allahabad High Court has declined to recall its March 2025 judgment that confirmed the conviction of an accused in a 1982 murder case, rejecting the recall application filed by the appellant who had remained absconding for over thirty years. The Bench of Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Praveen Kumar Giri held that the recall plea was barred by law and was not maintainable in the circumstances.
The appellant had argued that the conviction had been confirmed in his absence, treating him as an absconder, despite the fact that his appeal had been admitted and he had earlier been granted bail. He claimed that his counsel had passed away and he was unaware of further court proceedings. He asserted that he had been living away from his village, in Punjab with his brother, and only came to know of the judgment on 30 May 2025, after which he surrendered. He urged the court to treat the original judgment as ex parte and to recall it.
In rejecting this plea, the High Court noted that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code strictly prohibits a criminal court from reviewing or altering its judgment once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The court observed that the appellant had deliberately avoided the legal process for over three decades and had been granted multiple opportunities by the court to appear. The court emphasized that non-bailable warrants had been issued and repeated efforts were made to trace him and his sureties, but he remained elusive.
The court contrasted the case with precedents such as Dhananjay Rai v. State of Bihar, where the appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution; here, by contrast, the appeal had been heard on merits after due re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court also relied on a recent Supreme Court ruling reaffirming that once a judgment is signed, it attains the status of finality and cannot be revisited under inherent powers to circumvent statutory bars.
Given these aspects, the Bench concluded that the recall petition filed under Section 528 (formerly Section 482) of the Bombay, Nagpur, Sikkim, and Shillong (BNSS) Criminal Rules—along with delay-condonation applications—could not be maintained, as they were impermissible in view of the absolute bar imposed by Section 362 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the finality of the conviction.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.