High Court Can’t Entertain Application U/s.528 BNSS To Re-Examine Or Modify Its Judgment On Merits: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

The application before the High Court was filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking recall of the judgment confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

The Division Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri and Justice Vivek Kumar Birla asserted, “Moreover, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has time and again held that held that a High Court cannot entertain a recall or review application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) to re-examine or modify its own judgment on merits after it has been signed. The inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) can be used only to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, but it does not extend to reviewing a final judgment except for rectifying minor errors.”

Advocate G.P. Dixit represented the Appellant, while Additional Advocate General represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the appellant’s case that the impugned judgment was passed in the absence of the appellant, treating him as an absconder despite the appeal being admitted and the applicant having been granted bail. It was further submitted that the impugned order was passed ex parte without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and, therefore, the same may be recalled.

On the contrary, it was the case of the respondent State that the impugned order was passed on merits, after re-appreciation of the evidence, rather than due to non-prosecution.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the records of the case, the Bench found that the appellant was given ample opportunity to appear before the court, but he failed to do so. Despite being released on bail, the appellant chose to abscond and did not appear to represent himself, and thus, the Court proceeded to consider and adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Bench noticed that the appellant had not annexed any document which showed that he was residing outside of his residence, and he never approached his residence. No information was given to him by his family members, and he was evading the Court proceedings for the last thirty years.“The order sheet of Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983 reveals that several opportunities were given to the applicant/appellant. Even non-bailable warrant was issued against him but he did not come before the Court and gave wrong impression that whereabouts were not known to anybody”, it added.

Considering such facts and circumstances, the Bench held that the recall application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, along with the delay condonation application, was not maintainable as it was barred by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. (Section 403 of BNSS). Thus, the Bench dismissed the recall as well as the delay condonation applications.

Cause Title: Laxman v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:157122-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate G.P. Dixit, Prakash Chandra Srivastava, Vishnu Prakash

Respondent: Additional Advocate General

Click here to read/download Order