Criminal Court Cannot Alter, Review Or Recall Its Final Order: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
The trial court initially approved the transfer of custody but later recalled the order.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a criminal court cannot alter, review or recall its own final orders, emphasizing that the only recourse for an aggrieved party is to challenge such orders in appeal.
The petitioners, who were facing trial under multiple FIRs related to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), were also detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) during their trial. They had been transferred to jails in Uttar Pradesh. While their trials were pending, the petitioners filed applications before the trial court seeking to be transferred back to judicial custody in Jammu & Kashmir. The trial court allowed the petitioners' application and ordered their transfer to Mattan Jail, Anantnag, in Kashmir. However, the prosecution contested these orders, and the trial court later recalled them, citing a judgment from the High Court.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held, “Section 362 of the Cr. P. C. clearly provides that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
The Court added, “Thus, Section 362 of Cr. P. C. places an embargo prohibiting the Court to alter or review its judgment or final order and this embargo is relaxed only in two conditions; one when the review of a judgment of final order is provided under the Code or when the same is provided by any other law for the time being in force”.
Advocate Wajid Haseeb appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Syed Musaib, Deputy appeared for the respondents.
In its judgment, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Others (2004), which had overruled the previous legal position that allowed criminal courts to review their orders. The High Court found that the trial court’s action of recalling the order was inconsistent with legal provisions and the Supreme Court’s rulings on the matter.
The High Court held that the judgment cited by the trial court had been stayed by a division bench, meaning that the trial court had no authority to review or revoke its own final order. As a result, the court set aside the recalling order.
As a result, the Court set aside the trial court’s order recalling the transfer of custody and left the respondents with the option of pursuing appropriate remedies against the initial orders for the transfer of custody.
Cause Title: Feroz Ahmad Zargar & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors.
