Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1797 (RAJ)

A. Ponnuchami v. CBI through Public Prosecutor

2013-10-04

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya has filed this Criminal Misc. Application in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4275 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by this Court on behalf of the applicant Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of Virendra Singh @ Teeliya that on 27.4.2012 the bail application filed by A. Ponnuchami was heard and decided by this Court and in para 10 some observations were made by this Court and these observations are seriously causing prejudice to the applicant, therefore this application for recalling the order dated 27.4.2012 has been filed confined only to para No.10. It is further alleged in the application that finding recorded by this Court are causing serious prejudice to the applicant as in the garb of impugned findings, police is trying to implicate him in the false cases as higher police officials are accused in Dara Singh Murder case and the applicant is a witness in this case and therefore there are great possibilities that he may be booked in false cases. It is further stated that the substantial question of law arises in this case whether this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. rejecting prayer for grant of bail made by the accused person, without impleading a person, can record finding of fats and issue directions for lodging criminal case against the said person? It has further been stated that it was the mandatory requirement under the law that before issuing any direction against any person opportunity of hearing should be granted to him and no order causing prejudice to him can be passed on his back as it is violation of principle of natural justice and therefore finding and observations made in para No.10 in respect of the applicant are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further stated that the order dated 27.4.2012 was assailed by the applicant in relation to para 10 of the order dated 27.4.2012 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.4275/2012 before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate redress as may be permissible in law. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in Habu vs. State of Raj. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in Habu vs. State of Raj. RLR 1987(1) page 1, and judgment of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No.403 of 2011 dated 15.11.2011. 3. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.H. Khan, Public Prosecutor for the CBI and Mr. Peeyush Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutors appearing for the State has argued that this Hon'ble Court in the presence of Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan and the Public Prosecutors appearing for the State of Rajasthan and the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI and in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner A. Ponnuchami as per the information supplied to the Court, this court passed the order to curb the illegal activities and keep peace in State of Rajasthan by adopting appropriate measures to book the criminal offenders. The note took by this court and the measures suggested by the Advocate General and other advocates appearing for the CBI and State, this Court directed for taking appropriate action. The findings recorded in para No.10 of the judgment based on the basis of the record and the arguments raised by the parties and taken note of it by this court cannot be reviewed in an application filed by the applicant Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya, as it is a final judgment on the bail application filed by the petitioner as Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibits any review of final judgment by the Criminal Court except clerical or arithmetical error. The judgment passed on a bail application filed by an accused cannot be reviewed or quashed and set aside in an application filed by a person who is stranger to the proceedings before this Court. Counsel drawn attention of this Court towards Section 362 Cr.P.C. and further stated that the SLP filed by the applicant against the order dated 27.4.2012 in relation to para No.10 by Virendra Singh @ Teeliya was dismissed by the Apex Court as withdrawn. The application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. The order passed by this Court cannot be reviewed on an application filed by the applicant and the same was passed after hearing both the sides. Mr. The application filed by the applicant is not maintainable. The order passed by this Court cannot be reviewed on an application filed by the applicant and the same was passed after hearing both the sides. Mr. Tej Prakash, Special Public Prosecutor in support of his arguments placed reliance on State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 . 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the order passed by this Court dated 27.4.2012. 5. Para No.10 of the order passed in Bail Application No.4275 of 2012 decided on 27.4.2012 reads as under: 10. We have also called Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan along with Mr. Peeyush Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutors of the State of Rajasthan that still the business of the Mafia gang of wine smuggling is going on, whose head is Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya son of Ranjit Singh, resident of village Maloo Ki Dhani, PS, Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu and Veer Singh son of Sahi Ram resident of village Chilana Bas, Post Lakhlan Badi, Tehsil Rajgarh Distt. Churu, is its member. This fact was also disclosed by the CBI investigating team member Mr. Subhash Kundu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jaipur. Subhash Kundu has disclosed that Head of the Mafia Group of smuggling of wine Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya and his member Veer Singh s/o Sahiram, who are habitual offenders of the area in Rajasthan, are still continuing their business in the area but the State Government is not taking any action against these persons. In order to keep peace in the State of Rajasthan we have called the Advocate General of Rajasthan that the activities of Mafia group of smuggling of wine is still going on in the State of Rajasthan and such an illegal activities are to be curbed by the State of Rajasthan if such an information is supplied by the CBI. It is the duty of the officials in the State of Rajasthan to curb the illegal activities and keep peace in State of Rajasthan by adopting appropriate measures to book these criminal offenders like Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya s/o Ranjit Singh and Veer Singh s/o Sahi Ram. Mr. It is the duty of the officials in the State of Rajasthan to curb the illegal activities and keep peace in State of Rajasthan by adopting appropriate measures to book these criminal offenders like Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya s/o Ranjit Singh and Veer Singh s/o Sahi Ram. Mr. Subhash Kundu, Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI, at this stage when the judgment of this bail application was dictated stated that today he will write a detailed letter regarding the criminal activities in the area in State of Rajasthan to the Home Secretary of the State for taking action against such criminals in accordance with law and the copy of the said letter will also be given to the Advocate General, and it is expected from the State Government that they shall take action in accordance with law against the mafia group of smuggling wine." 6. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at Section 362 Cr.P.C., the same reads as under: 362. Court not to alter judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, 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. Thus it is clear 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. 7. The applicant in the instant application has prayed for quashing and setting aside para No.10 of the judgment dated 27.4.2012 which was passed after following the principles of natural justice after hearing the Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan, Special Public Prosecutors for the CBI, Public Prosecutors for the State of Rajasthan and the counsel for the petitioner A. Ponnuchami, Mr. Ajai Kumar Jain, in a judgment dictated in open Court. I have gone through the judgments cited by the counsel and in my view the same are not applicable in the facts of this case. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 403 of 2011 withdrawn the criminal misc. petition which was wrongly filed by him. The operative portion of the order in S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No.403/2011 dated 15.11.2011 reads as under: In view of the above, this misc. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 403 of 2011 withdrawn the criminal misc. petition which was wrongly filed by him. The operative portion of the order in S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No.403/2011 dated 15.11.2011 reads as under: In view of the above, this misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the State is allowed and the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3581/2011 is recalled. Mr. B.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws the misc. petition No.3581 of 2011. He is permitted to do so and the misc. petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the counsel for the petitioner to file appeal or writ petition against he order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the DJ Tonk on an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The copy of this order may be kept with the Stamp Reporter to properly scrutinize in such types of matter and may not commit any such mistakes in future. The copy of this order may also be sent to DJ, Tonk. The misc. stay application filed along with the misc. petition also stands rejected. The misc. application No.403 of 2011 stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Habu vs. State of Rajasthan RLR 1987 page 1, related to an appellant in those absence and his lawyer's absence this Court decided the matter on merits and hence direction was given for re-calling the judgment. 9. It is not a matter in which judgment was given in absence of the counsel and hence there is no question of quashing a particular para No.10 in the judgment passed on the bail application. Para No.10 of the judgment was related to law and order situation in the State of Rajasthan and to curb the illegal activities and keep peace in State of Rajasthan, this Court observed such a situation in para No.10 and expected from the State of Rajasthan to adopt appropriate measures. I have further perused para 10 of the judgment dated 27.4.2012 and there is no clerical or arithmetical error in the judgment. It is only written in para No.10 of the judgment dated 27.4.2012 that "Mr. I have further perused para 10 of the judgment dated 27.4.2012 and there is no clerical or arithmetical error in the judgment. It is only written in para No.10 of the judgment dated 27.4.2012 that "Mr. Subhash Kundu, Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI, at this stage when the judgment of this bail application was dictated stated that today he will write a detailed letter regarding the criminal activities in the area in State of Rajasthan to the Home Secretary of the State for taking action against such criminals in accordance with law. It is thus clear that any action in the matter will be taken by the authorities in the State in accordance with law and hence there is no question of any opportunity of being heard in the bail application of the accused petitioner. A Ponnuchami arises in this matter. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the misc. application filed by applicant Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya for recalling/quashing and setting aside para No.10 in the judgment dated 27.4.2012 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.4275 of 2012 being devoid of merit stands rejected.