JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The Apex Court baffled by the mounting numbers of economic offences and financial scams in a matter of grant of bail in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 (7) SCC 466 Paragraph 23 observed as under : “23) Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under : (SC C p. 371 para 5). “5.....The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....” The Constitutional mandate under Article 21 spells out a fundamental right that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include medical care of every person, followed by the Directive Principles of the State Policy that are engrafted in Act 39, 42 and 47 where the State is obliged to maintain health standards and improve public health. What happens if the standard bearers of public governance indulge in acts contrary to such mandate while discharging their public duties? 2. The country is facing a huge drop in matters of moral decline and financial bankruptcy, and the present case adds another dark leaf to the annals of such critical moments. To save the society, its rulers and the ruled, from any further ignominy is an urgent need and a constitutional obligation. 2. The country is facing a huge drop in matters of moral decline and financial bankruptcy, and the present case adds another dark leaf to the annals of such critical moments. To save the society, its rulers and the ruled, from any further ignominy is an urgent need and a constitutional obligation. The story unfolded in the present case reveals the squandering and alleged defalcation of several hundred Crores of public exchequer through dubious transactions with a network spread far and wide leading to several criminal acts, but with no less lapses that have been contributed by the judicial system, the glaring example whereof is the present proceeding. 3. Even though we heard the learned counsel attentively at their convenience, but instead of giving a leisurely account, we have set out a brief true account of facts that have radiated more than the desired anxiety. These two applications praying for recall of the orders dated 11.12.2013 have come up before this Bench on a nomination made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 14.12.2013 pursuant to the order of the Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 13.12.2013 extracted hereunder : “The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved both the recall applications. A special mention has been made before this Court by counsel for the CBI on grounds of exceptional urgency and we have called for the recall applications from the office. On 5 December 2013, bail was granted by Hon’ble Jayashree Tiwari, J to the two accused, namely Ram Prasad Jaiswal and Dinesh Kumar Singh. On 11 December 2013, a correction application was served in the office of counsel for the CBI on behalf of Ram Prasad Jaiswal stating that the correction application would be taken up on 12 December 2013. The grievance of the CBI is that on 11 December 2013, no intimation was given to the effect that the correction application would be taken up out of turn and before 12 December 2013. It has been stated that on 11 December 2013, a counter-affidavit was prepared by counsel for the CBI and was served on the counsel for the accused (Ram Prasad Jaiswal) on 12 December 2013. At this stage also counsel was not informed that the correction application had already been disposed of. It has been stated that on 11 December 2013, a counter-affidavit was prepared by counsel for the CBI and was served on the counsel for the accused (Ram Prasad Jaiswal) on 12 December 2013. At this stage also counsel was not informed that the correction application had already been disposed of. Admittedly, as has now been stated by the learned counsel for Dinesh Kumar Singh, the correction application filed on behalf of Dinesh Kumar Singh was not ever served on counsel for the CBI. On 12 December 2013, which was the last working day, in office, of Hon’ble Jayashree Tiwari, J before the Judge was to demit office on retirement, no assignment of judicial work was entrusted to the learned Judge. It has been stated in the recall application that an affidavit alongwith an uncertified copy of the order obtained from the internet was filed before the concerned Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad stating that an order has been passed on the correction application and, hence, release order may be passed. It has been stated by the CBI that even when the counsel went to the chamber of the learned Judge to make a mention that in case the correction application was to be taken up, he may be informed in order to oppose the application, the learned counsel was informed by the Secretary to the Judge that the Judge is not going to pass any order on 12 December 2013. Prima facie, on the basis of the material, which has been disclosed before this Court, at the present stage, it is clear that the order dated 11 December 2013 has been passed without notice to CBI. In the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal, the correction application had been served on 11 December 2013 with a specific endorsement that the application would be taken up on 12 December 2013. However, it appears that an order was passed on 11 December 2013 itself disposing of the correction application. In the case of D.K. Singh, it is now admitted that even the correction application was not served. Prima facie, at this stage, it is clear that the manner in which the correction applications have been allowed, is irregular. Prima facie, it appears at this stage that the due course of justice and the due process of law have been subverted by the accused. Prima facie, at this stage, it is clear that the manner in which the correction applications have been allowed, is irregular. Prima facie, it appears at this stage that the due course of justice and the due process of law have been subverted by the accused. In R. Rathinam v. State By DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai and another, (2000) 2 SCC 391 , the Supreme Court has considered the law on the subject, particularly having regard to the provisions of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court has held that the exercise of power under Section 439 (2) by the High Court to direct that any person, who has been released on bail, be arrested and committed to custody is not barred on the premise that the bail was granted by a Court on a judicial consideration. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that there is no barrier either in Section 439 or in any other law which inhibits even a member of the public from moving the High Court to exercise such power suo motu. Moreover, it has been held in the judgment of the Supreme Court that all matters which can be heard and decided by a Single Judge can, as well, be heard by a Division Bench, the assignment being the prerogative of the Chief Justice. In the present case, the material which has been placed for consideration of the Court specially in regard to the manner of exercise of power by the learned Judge would warrant that the recall applications should be heard by a Division Bench. The Court has been informed that the Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad is likely to release the accused at 1.00 pm on bail unless an order is passed in the meantime. Considering the urgency of the matter, we pass the following order : (i) The operation of orders dated 11 December 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 365038 of 2013 and in Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 363101 of 2013 shall remain stayed pending the disposal of the recall applications and the Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad presided over by Dr. A.K. Singh is directed not to give effect to these orders dated 11 December 2013 passed by the Court in the above referred correction applications filed in Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 363101 of 2013 shall remain stayed pending the disposal of the recall applications and the Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad presided over by Dr. A.K. Singh is directed not to give effect to these orders dated 11 December 2013 passed by the Court in the above referred correction applications filed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4314 of 2013 and 8237 of 2013; and (ii) In view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in R. Rathinam (supra), the further hearing of the recall applications shall now be placed before a Division Bench of this Court to be presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amar Saran. The Registrar General is directed to immediately communicate a copy of this order by fax to the learned Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad presided over by Dr. A.K. Singh. Since the transcription of present order would take some time, telephonic instructions may also be issued. The proceedings shall now appear before the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amar Saran on 16 December 2013.” 4. The preceding events and the orders passed that have led to the filing of these two recall applications have their genesis in the infamous scam relating to the siphoning, misuse and misappropriation of funds for implementing the National Rural Health Mission Scheme. A Division Bench at Lucknow in three Public Interest Litigations No. 2647 of 2011, 3301 of 2011 and 3611 of 2011 issued stern directions as a consequence whereof a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and F.I.Rs. were registered followed by formal investigation carried out by the C.B.I. The investigations allegedly revealed the names of several accused having hatched a conspiracy to award surreptitious contracts to some firms for up-gradation of hospitals in the State and supply of Modular OT Equipments and Airconditioning Units. were registered followed by formal investigation carried out by the C.B.I. The investigations allegedly revealed the names of several accused having hatched a conspiracy to award surreptitious contracts to some firms for up-gradation of hospitals in the State and supply of Modular OT Equipments and Airconditioning Units. The names of some of the accused, including the accused applicant Ram Prasad Jaiswal and Dinesh Kumar Singh, surfaced when the statements of Manvendra Chaddha, Girish Malik and Ritesh Kumar were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ram Prasad Jaiswal, a former Member of Legislative Assembly from Barhaj, district - Deoria, representing the then ruling Bahujan Samaj Party is alleged to have conspired with the then Minister Babu Singh Kushwaha to execute these surreptitious transactions, and having accepted illegal gratification further indulged in investing the money so received in fake trusts and companies. The Investigating Agency, on the basis of several paper transactions relating to the aforesaid conspiracy, filed charge-sheets and the accused were taken into custody. This led to the filing of bail applications by the accused that were rejected by the trial Court. 5. Needless to mention that the bail applications were moved before the Court below in the offences that are subject-matter of trial insofar as the present accused - applicants are concerned in RC-220-2012 E 0001 and RC-220-2012 E 0002. The details whereof need not be repeated here as they are already mentioned in the bail applications and the orders passed thereon. The offences, therefore, related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well, apart from other substantive offences, and upon the rejection order having been passed by the trial Court, the accused approached the High Court for grant of bail. 6. At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that a learned single Judge of this Court on 23.8.2012 had granted bail to one Saurav Jain, one of the co-accused where after the bail applications of Ram Prasad Jaiswal and Dinesh Kumar Singh were filed in January, 2013, after their bail applications had also been rejected by the Court below. Some more bail orders were granted to other co-accused. One order that refuses bail to a prominent accused is that of Dr. S.P. Ram, Bail Application No. 22611 of 2013 rejected by Hon’ble Justice Jayshree Tewari on 12.9.2013. Some more bail orders were granted to other co-accused. One order that refuses bail to a prominent accused is that of Dr. S.P. Ram, Bail Application No. 22611 of 2013 rejected by Hon’ble Justice Jayshree Tewari on 12.9.2013. There is another interim order dated 29.11.2013 in an Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 38270 of 2013 restraining the trial Court from passing any order on the point of charge in the matter of prime accused, the then Minister, Babu Singh Kushwaha. It appears that the said matter is still pending. It is also relevant to point out that some of the co-accused filed criminal Revisions before this Court, who were basically Government Servants and Doctors, involved in the said scam, challenging the cognisance order of the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), C.B.I., Ghaziabad, in Special Trial No. 2 of 2013 arising out of Charge-sheet No. RC/A-0004. A learned Judge of this Court even though refused to quash the order, but made it open for the revisionists to raise the point relating to the sanction for prosecution, and also accepted the prayer for consideration of their bail on the same day if they surrender within 30 days before the Trial Court. The Court also directed release of the revisionists if the bail application is not disposed of on the same day. Further coercive process was also directed to remain in abeyance. The aforesaid orders were passed in Criminal Revision No. 813 of 2013 connected with other criminal Revisions that were disposed of on 24.5.2013. 7. Some of the revisionists, being not satisfied by the relief so granted by this Court, have filed Special Leave to Appeals before the Apex Court assailing the said order of the High Court dated 24.5.2013 that are pending consideration before the Apex Court. In the appeal filed by Dr. Usha Tomar v. State of U.P., there is an interim order staying the prosecution of the said appellant vide interim order dated 20.6.2013 by the Apex Court. A similar stay order has been passed in the Appeal filed by S.N. Shukla arising out of the same order of the High Court. 8. Bail Application Nos. 4310 of 2013 and 4314 of 2013 of the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal were presented in January, 2013, and came to be assigned to a learned single Judge on 6.3.2013 who proceeded with the matter. 8. Bail Application Nos. 4310 of 2013 and 4314 of 2013 of the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal were presented in January, 2013, and came to be assigned to a learned single Judge on 6.3.2013 who proceeded with the matter. The bail application No. 8237 of 2013 of Dinesh Kumar Singh was presented in March of the same year and was assigned to the same learned single Judge on 4.4.2013. Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013 was directed to come up for consideration after connecting it with Bail Application No. 4310 vide order dated 10.4.2013. These two applications vide order dated 28.5.2013 were directed by the learned single Judge to be placed before the appropriate Bench on 4.7.2013. Bail Application No. 8237 of 2013 was directed to come up before the appropriate Bench vide order dated 9.4.2013, and again the same order was passed on 31.5.2013. Thus, the learned single Judge, who had been hearing all the three bail applications, directed the same to be placed before the appropriate Bench. It appears that with the change of roster, orders were passed assigning Bail Application Nos. 4310 of 2013 and 4314 of 2013 on 8.7.2013 to another learned single Judge. Bail Application No. 8237 of 2013 was also taken up by the same learned single Judge on 24.7.2013, who directed it to be listed alongwith the aforesaid two bail applications. 9. From the order-sheet dated 4.10.2013 of Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013, it appears that the learned single Judge, who was hearing the matter, released the said Bail Application directing it to come up on Monday next after getting nomination from Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice/Senior Judge. Consequently, all the 3 bail applications appear to have been de-linked from the said Court and the record of Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013 was placed before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, who passed an order on 5.10.2013 nominating another learned single Judge to hear the said Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013. It is to be noted that there are no separate nomination orders either on Bail Application No. 4310 of 2013 or 8237 of 2013. 10. The learned single Judge, who was nominated to hear Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013, released the same on 23.10.2013 where after the then Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 29.10.2013 nominated another learned single Judge. 10. The learned single Judge, who was nominated to hear Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013, released the same on 23.10.2013 where after the then Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 29.10.2013 nominated another learned single Judge. This nomination order is again only on the ordersheet of Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013. The learned single Judge, who had been nominated, also released the case vide order dated 12.11.2013 and consequently the file reached before Hon’ble the present Chief Justice for fresh nomination. Vide order dated 14.11.2013, the learned single Judge, who finally granted bail to the accused on 5.12.2013, was nominated by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. This nomination order again is on the order-sheet of Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013 only. 11. It appears that the learned single Judge, who finally heard the matter, did not have with her the routine roster of such bail matters of 2013 and was sitting in a different jurisdiction. Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013 that had been nominated to her, appears to have come up before the learned Judge whereupon she passed the following order on 27.11.2013 : “Case called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the accused applicant has sent an mention slip today which is taken on record and is made part of the record. Earlier the case was passed over on eleven occasions on the slip of the counsel. This is the 12th slip of the counsel. Perusal of the cause list shows that as many as 22 lawyers have filed their parcha in this case. This time mention slip has been sent by Sri Dileep Kumar. This case has been adjourned on 12 occasions on slip of the either of the counsel for the applicants. This is an apparent example of nothing but abuse of the process of the Court which is not allowed to be continued. List this case peremptorily on 2.12.2013 on which learned counsel for the applicant shall positively argue the matter. Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J Dt. 27.11.2013" 12. Consequently, taking notice of the repeated adjournments being sought by the Counsel for the applicant, the Court commented upon it to be an abuse of process of Court by not allowing the Bail Application to be heard, as such, the matter was to come up peremptorily on 2.12.2013. Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J Dt. 27.11.2013" 12. Consequently, taking notice of the repeated adjournments being sought by the Counsel for the applicant, the Court commented upon it to be an abuse of process of Court by not allowing the Bail Application to be heard, as such, the matter was to come up peremptorily on 2.12.2013. As per the order-sheet, the arguments were heard on that date and the matter was directed to come up on 4.12.2013 for further arguments and hearing. The order-sheet records that on 4.12.2013, the arguments could not be concluded and the same was directed to come up on 5.12.2013. Finally on 5.12.2013, the learned single Judge granted bail not only to the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal in Application No. 4314 of 2013 that was nominated to her, but also to the same accused in Bail Application No. 4310 of 2013 and to the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Singh in Bail Application No. 8237 of 2013 that were not nominated to her. 13. We may, therefore, put on record that even though the previous learned single Judges, before whom the matter had been placed, had passed orders separately on 10.4.2013 and 24.7.2013 for connecting all the three bail applications, yet the nomination order dated 14.11.2013 is found only on the order-sheet of Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013. The turn in the case commenced with the filing of two Correction Applications that have given rise to the filing of the Recall Applications in relation thereto. Correction Application on behalf of Dinesh Kumar Singh in Bail Application No. 8237 of 2013 was filed on 10.12.2013 by Sri Ajat Shatru Pandey, Advocate, praying that the correction be allowed and that Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be added in bail order dated 5.12.2013 as according to the said application, there was a typographical error to the said extent. The Correction Application does not appear to have been supported by any Affidavit. The application was moved on 10.12.2013 admittedly without serving a copy of the same on the counsel for the C.B.I. Sri Anurag Khanna. According to learned Counsel for the accused applicant Ram Prasad Jaiswal, the fact that the copy of the said correction application had not been served on Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., was not known to the Counsel for Ram Prasad Jaiswal. According to learned Counsel for the accused applicant Ram Prasad Jaiswal, the fact that the copy of the said correction application had not been served on Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., was not known to the Counsel for Ram Prasad Jaiswal. As a matter of practice, Correction Applications for such typographical and arithmetical errors are usually sent the very next day to the Court concerned alongwith records of the case under a computerised separate list. Sri Rajeev Gupta, Advocate, whose name also appears on the file cover alongwith Sri Dilip Kumar, Advocate and Sri Rajarshi Gupta, is stated to have been informed about the said application for correction having been filed, and since corrections were also required in the bail order of Ram Prasad Jaiswal, a separate combined application No. 365038 of 2013 was prepared on 11.12.2013 and filed in the office. A copy of this application was served on Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the C.B.I. and the application mentions that the same would be taken up for consideration before the Court concerned on 12.12.2013 which was in the usual course as per the practice mentioned aforesaid. 14. From the facts that have been brought on record through the Affidavits filed on behalf of accused applicant Ram Prasad Jaiswal, it appears that Sri Rajeev Gupta Advocate also attempted to make a special mention for hearing of the correction Application of Ram Prasad Jaiswal as well, alongwith the application of Dinesh Kumar Singh. The facts as admitted in the supplementary-counter-affidavit of Preetam Jaiswal dated 20.12.2013 further puts on record that Sri Rajeev Gupta sought permission in the Chambers of the learned single Judge after lunch hours when the Correction Application of Dinesh Kumar Singh was to be taken up for hearing for the Correction Application in two matters of Ram Prasad Jaiswal as well. In order to clarify about any knowledge to the Counsel for the C.B.I. of any such special mention being made on 11.2.2013 itself, a second supplementary-counter-affidavit of Preetam Jaiswal has been filed on 2.1.2014, and in paragraph No. 5 thereof it has been categorically stated that the information of special mention being made in the Chambers of learned single Judge, had not been given to the counsel for the C.B.I. who was not physically present at the time of passing of the orders on the correction application. It has, however, been asserted that there was a bona fide impression that since the connected matter of Dinesh Kumar Singh was already on Board, there was no occasion or opportunity to inform the Counsel for the C.B.I. Thus, there was no motive or ill-intention of not informing the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. about the taking up of the Recall Applications in the Chambers of the learned single Judge on 11.12.2013. According to the recall applications that have been filed in both the cases, the Counsel for the C.B.I. had no notice of the correction application at all in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh as no copy had been served, and the applications in the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal even though had been served, were mentioned specially behind the back of the Counsel for the C.B.I. to be taken up out of turn on the very same day on which it was filed. Thus, the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. had absolutely no knowledge of the proceedings of correction either in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh or that of Ram Prasad Jaiswal that were taken up either in Court No. 25 or in the Chambers of the learned single Judge, who passed the orders on 11.12.2013 that has given rise to the present controversy. 15. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention that the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. had prepared a counter-affidavit to the correction Application No. 365038 of 2013 in the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal and had served it on the learned counsel for the accused, but did not file it in the Court. On 12.12.2013, the present Recall Applications were filed making several allegations about the orders having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice in the circumstances indicated above with a further assertion in Paragraph Nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Application sworn by Sub-Inspector Atar Pal, that there was no order rejecting the Bail Application of the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such averments, according to the learned Counsel for the accused, were also contained in the counter-affidavit to the correction Application of Ram Prasad Jaiswal which was never filed in Court. 16. Such averments, according to the learned Counsel for the accused, were also contained in the counter-affidavit to the correction Application of Ram Prasad Jaiswal which was never filed in Court. 16. Learned Counsel for the C.B.I. is stated to have made this urgent mention before Hon’ble the Chief Justice and is also stated to have sent a SMS to Sri Rajarshi Gupta, the counsel for the accused on his mobile phone, intimating simply that please come to C.J’s Court. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, there is an incorrect endorsement on the Recall Application about their refusal to receive the application, as according to them, this was all done behind the back of the counsel for the accused by intimating incorrect facts to Hon’ble the Chief Justice against record as contained in Paragraph Nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the Affidavit of Sub-Inspector Atar Pal filed in support of the Recall Application. The Counsel for the other accused Dinesh Kumar Singh was, however present, and the disturbing facts that led to the passing of orders by a Division Bench on 13.12.2013 have been extracted herein above at the very outset. It is in the aforesaid background that the matter commenced hearing before us on 19.12.2013. Learned Counsel sought time to file Affidavits on 20.12.2013 where after the matter was fixed for exchange of Affidavits and for further hearing on 2.1.2014. 17. We have extensively heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajat Shatru Pandey for the accused Dinesh Kumar Singh in Bail Application No. 8237 of 2013 and Sri Dilip Kumar assisted by Sri Rajeev Gupta, Advocate, for the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal, alongwith Sri R.B. Singhal, Senior Advocate and Sri Anurag Khanna for the C.B.I. We had called upon the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. to file an Affidavit in view of the allegations contained in the supplementary-counter-affidavit dated 20.12.2013 filed on behalf of the accused relating to certain facts stated by the C.B.I. against record, upon which an Affidavit dated 2.1.2014 captioned as a supplementary-rejoinder-affidavit and sworn by Sri Rakesh Kumar, Inspector C.B.I., has been brought on record. After the learned Counsel had concluded their arguments and had to add nothing further, the orders were reserved by us. After the learned Counsel had concluded their arguments and had to add nothing further, the orders were reserved by us. Before proceeding to delve into the matter on the merits of the Recall, we may clarify that as per the orders aforesaid, it is only the Recall Applications that have been assigned to us for being disposed of and we have, therefore, accordingly heard the Counsel at length on the said applications. 18. The power of recall is inherent in every Court particularly when any error is attributable to the procedure adopted by the Court while passing an order, and a couple of illustrations would be, when either an order is passed for lack of jurisdiction or is otherwise in violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, after having examined the facts on record and also the law relating to any lapse of such procedure, we are satisfied that the orders passed by the learned single Judge on 11.12.2013 on the two correction applications were definitely behind the back of learned Counsel for the C.B.I. and without information to him with no opportunity to contest the same, hence the order dated 11.12.2013 is in violation of principles of natural justice. On the issue of jurisdiction also there appears to be substance as we shall explain hereinafter but the same would be appropriately considered when the competence of the Court to entertain the correction applications itself is dealt with at the appropriate stage. 19. Advancing his submissions, learned Senior Counsel Sri Singhal for the C.B.I. urged that the corrections that were sought were admittedly clouded under suspicious circumstances. For this, he urges that firstly the Counsel for Dinesh Kumar Singh did not take care to even file a proper application supported by an Affidavit, and secondly did not choose to serve a copy of the said application at all on the Counsel for the C.B.I., for reasons best known either to the accused or his Counsel. For this, he urges that firstly the Counsel for Dinesh Kumar Singh did not take care to even file a proper application supported by an Affidavit, and secondly did not choose to serve a copy of the said application at all on the Counsel for the C.B.I., for reasons best known either to the accused or his Counsel. Secondly, in the case of the other accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal, there is a serious lapse on the part of the Counsel for the accused in not having informed the Counsel for the C.B.I. about any special mention having been made out of turn for taking up the correction application on the same day, i.e. 11.12.2013 itself, inspite of the fact that the application itself made a request in writing that it would be taken up on 12.12.2013. This hurried change and an attempt to get the application taken up on 11.12.2013 is also a matter of consideration as it is doubtful as to how the orders came to be passed, more so when the learned single Judge was demitting office on the very next day i.e. 12.12.2013, which was her last working day, coupled with the circumstance of the entire work of the learned Judge being withdrawn under orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice from her for 12.12.2013 requesting her to attend Chambers only. In this background with no information to the Counsel for the C.B.I., the order dated 11.12.2013 is a nullity and was even otherwise not relating to any typographical or arithmetical error for being entertained in the Chambers. 20. To justify the bona fides of such impression, Sri Singhal has invited the attention of the Court to certain documents alongwith the supplementary-rejoinder-affidavit dated 2.1.2014 including the application dated 10.12.2013 filed by the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal before the Special Judge, C.B.I. at Ghaziabad praying that the accused had been granted bail by the High Court on 5.12.2013, but since the accused had not been specifically refused bail under Section 8 readwith Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore, the accused be granted bail and orders be passed thereon. Sri Singhal submits that the accused himself, therefore, admitted the fact on 10.12.2013 that no orders had been passed in the offences relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sri Singhal submits that the accused himself, therefore, admitted the fact on 10.12.2013 that no orders had been passed in the offences relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sri Singhal further urged that the said application had been filed before the Court below on 10.12.2013, has nowhere been mentioned in the correction Application No. 363101 of 2013 filed by accused Dinesh Kumar Singh. He submits that the aforesaid fact stated in the application filed by the Court below coupled with the fact that it was suppressed in the correction application dis-entitles the accused Dinesh Kumar Singh from any orders on account of this conduct. On the issue relating to jurisdiction, Sri Singhal has relied on the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. to urge that no such correction application was entertainable nor any orders could have been passed thereon without opportunity to the Counsel for the C.B.I. or notice to him. 21. He further contends that it is in these urgent circumstances and the bizarre situation created by the accused and their Counsel that the application for recall was filed and rightly entertained by the Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice which deserves to be allowed. He has vehemently urged that even otherwise no such prayer could have been made through correction applications and that applications could have been entertained only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVIII Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. He further submits that this Court has wide powers to take Suo Motu action for recall, and even further in matters relating to passing of orders under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as per sub-section 2 thereof, and for this, he has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Apex Court as referred to in the order of the Division Bench dated 13.12.2013. Thus, in sum and substance, the corrections that were attempted by the accused through the applications were in effect an exercise in the dark more so when the nature of the offences and the seriousness thereof is writ large in the background aforesaid. Thus, in sum and substance, the corrections that were attempted by the accused through the applications were in effect an exercise in the dark more so when the nature of the offences and the seriousness thereof is writ large in the background aforesaid. The arguments for the accused have been spearheaded by Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused Dinesh Kumar Singh who contends that even assuming for the sake of arguments that an inadvertent mistake had been committed by not serving a copy of the correction application on the learned counsel for the C.B.I., the same would neither be of any consequence or any prejudice, inasmuch as, firstly, the impression given by the learned counsel about the bail having not been heard or refused in the substantive sections by the Court below, was an incorrect impression and Paragraphs 15 to 17 of the recall application were against the record. He submits that the application for correction was bona fide and at the most the application can be alternatively heard again if the Court arrives at the conclusion that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. 22. The contention is that the recall application, therefore, was founded on incorrect facts projected before the Division Bench and the allegations made in the recall application have been blown out of proportion as against an inadvertent mistake. The error of not serving a copy of the application has been sought to be explained by an affidavit dated 2nd January, 2014 filed by the learned counsel assisting Sri Chaturvedi, Sri Ajatshatru Pandey who has stated that this mistake occurred on account of the Clerk of the counsel who in a routine way served it upon the State of U.P. and the lapse was unintentional and not deliberate. 23. Sri Chaturvedi contends that the error in the bail order dated 5.12.2013 in relation to accused Dinesh Kumar Singh was a typographical error as Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had been omitted to be mentioned by the Stenographer of the learned Single Judge who disposed of the bail application. He submits that the counsel has tendered his unqualified apology for the mistake committed by his Clerk which was admitted before the division bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice as incorporated in the order dated 13.12.2013. He submits that the counsel has tendered his unqualified apology for the mistake committed by his Clerk which was admitted before the division bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice as incorporated in the order dated 13.12.2013. He therefore prays that the recall application having not been founded on correct facts deserves to be rejected and alternatively the correction application may be heard afresh and orders be passed accordingly. He has invited the attention of the Court to the orders passed by the Court below on 27.7.2012, 24.8.2012 and 8.1.2013 to buttress his submissions. In essence his contention is that it was an absolutely normal correction application which deserved to be allowed and no ulterior motive can be attributed so as to impute any attempt made by the accused to subvert the course of justice. 24. Sri Dilip Kumar for the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal has taken objection to the manner in which the recall application was entertained and the orders were passed by the division bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice firstly on the ground that Paragraphs 15 to 17 of the affidavit in support of the recall application were incorrect averments and against record, and secondly, the orders were passed behind the back of the learned counsel who was not informed about the nature of the proceedings at all before the division bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 13.12.2013. He contends that there is an incorrect endorsement made on the recall application about the refusal by the counsel to receive a copy of the application. The submission therefore is that the learned counsel for the C.B.I. committed a manifest procedural error by addressing the division bench on the recall application without any information to him or any other counsel for the accused Ram Prasad Jaiswal. In the circumstances, the recall application having been initially heard in violation of principles of natural justice the same deserves to be rejected. 25. Sri Dilip Kumar has laid stress on the manner in which the affidavits have been filed by the officials of the C.B.I. to explain their conduct, and has urged that in view of the affidavits filed on behalf of the C.B.I. now accepting their mistake, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. would equally apply to them as well, and therefore, this Court should reject the recall application. 26. 26. He has extensively taken the Court to the affidavits that are on record to substantiate his submissions and he further contends that there was no deliberate or intended motive to subvert justice by the accused as the bail had already been granted after hearing the counsel on 5th December, 2013. The Court had therefore applied its mind to the entire facts including the plea relating to the substantive offences as well and in the circumstances the corrections sought were fully justified. He submits that the passing of the orders on 11th December, 2013 does not in any way amount to modifying or altering the bail order dated 5.12.2013 and is therefore not hit by the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. The contention is that the correction was done as is usually carried out in such matters. He further submits with the help of the affidavits referred to hereinabove that the counsel was under the impression that the correction application of the other co-accused Dinesh Kumar Singh was on board and in such circumstances, since the correction application in the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal had been served on the counsel for the C.B.I., there was no reason to avoid the presence of the counsel for this trivial issue. 27. Sri Dilip Kumar has then explained the circumstances as to how the special mention was made before the learned Single Judge and after being entertained, the orders were passed on 11.12.2013. He submits that so far as actual transcription of orders and their contents are concerned, the same is entirely in the hands of the Court but so far as the procedure adopted for entertaining the application is concerned there was no abnormality or impropriety which can be attributed either to the counsel or to the concerned Judge in the background aforesaid. 28. He submits that the order was uploaded next day that is on 12.12.2013 even though the same had been passed a day earlier when the learned Judge had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the application. The circumstances in which the order came to be uploaded the next day cannot be explained by the accused as this was entirely an internal functioning of the Court itself. The circumstances in which the order came to be uploaded the next day cannot be explained by the accused as this was entirely an internal functioning of the Court itself. He contends that no motive can be attributed on the given facts of the present case either on the accused or their counsel who have acted bonafidely under the clear impression that the bail had already been granted on 5th December, 2013. 29. He further submits that there are no reasons to doubt the correctness of the procedure adopted for disposing of the correction applications and if this Court comes to the conclusion that there was any such error in not informing the counsel for the C.B.I., then in that event alternatively, the correction application can be heard again. He however retains and reasserts his first argument that the C.B.I. and his counsel have tainted the matter in a way so as to give an impression of an incorrect motive on the part of the accused which is absolutely unwarranted. The situation was sought to be explained through the second supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 2.1.2014 where, the mistake of not having informed the counsel for the C.B.I. about the special mention being made to take up the correction application out of turn, has been accepted. 30. He has also prayed that appropriate action should be taken in view of the admitted position that the affidavits filed by the C.B.I. are against the weight of evidence on record and an adverse inference should be drawn against them and he has also urged that the counter-affidavit which was sworn by the official of the C.B.I. to the correction application in the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal has been deliberately withheld for reasons best known to the counsel for the C.B.I. The same has not been filed in Court which aspect also demonstrates and reaffirms the incorrect facts stated in Paragraphs 15 to 17 of the affidavit in support of the recall application. This according to him by itself is sufficient to reject the recall application as the recall was sought by placing wrong facts and giving an incorrect information to the division bench for entertaining the recall application vide order dated 13.12.2013. 31. This according to him by itself is sufficient to reject the recall application as the recall was sought by placing wrong facts and giving an incorrect information to the division bench for entertaining the recall application vide order dated 13.12.2013. 31. In rejoinder, Sri Singhal for the C.B.I. contends that no motives are being attributed to either the counsel or to the learned Single Judge but the facts as on record, and now as that emerge on exchange of affidavits, leaves no room for doubt that both learned counsel for the accused have practically conceded that the order dated 11.12.2013 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without opportunity to the counsel for the C.B.I. and behind his back. He therefore submits that the recall be allowed and the correction application be also rejected. 32. Having considered the submissions raised and having perused the records it is evident that the bail applications were finally heard and disposed of on 5.12.2013. The application for correction in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh being application No. 363101 of 2013 was filed on 10.12.2013 without serving a copy on the counsel for the C.B.I. praying for the correction of the bail order on the ground of inadvertent omission of Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the bail order. We have perused the said application and we do not find any affidavit filed in support thereof and the fact that it was not served on the counsel for the C.B.I. has been admitted by the learned counsel, before the division bench on 13.12.2013 as well as before us, and in the affidavit which has been filed by Sri Ajatshatru Pandey. Thus the application and its contents were not known to the C.B.I. as a result whereof the C.B.I. counsel had no occasion to oppose the same. Consequently, the order thereon was passed clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. 33. The situation is no better in the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal where application No. 365038 of 2013 was filed for carrying out the corrections as prayed for in the other two bail applications. A copy of the said application was undoubtedly served on the counsel for the C.B.I., but this application was filed on 11.12.2013 itself and had not come up alongwith the application in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh. A copy of the said application was undoubtedly served on the counsel for the C.B.I., but this application was filed on 11.12.2013 itself and had not come up alongwith the application in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh. To the contrary the application recited that it would be taken up on 12.12.2013. It is for this reason that the learned counsel Sri Rajeev Gupta made a special mention for taking the said application out of turn alongwith the application of Dinesh Kumar Singh for passing orders on the correction as prayed. The circumstances in which the application was moved has been stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 20.12.2013, but it has also been admitted in the subsequent affidavit dated 2.1.2014 that this request for special mention for taking up the said application on the same day, was not made known to the learned counsel for the C.B.I. 34. For this the explanation given is that such information was not given under the impression that the application of D.K. Singh was already coming in due course about which the counsel for the C.B.I. might be having notice. It has also been stated that Sri Rajeev Gupta or the pairokar of the accused had no knowledge about the application in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh having not been served on the counsel for the C.B.I. Thus the plea raised is of adopting of the usual practice of making a special mention about which there was nothing new, and that it was not deliberate or intentional to avoid the counsel for the C.B.I. 35. We have considered the same but we find, that the fact that no information for taking up the application on the same day was given to the C.B.I. counsel, is accepted on record and the application for correction was taken out of turn by the learned Judge in her chambers who also did not call upon the learned counsel for the C.B.I. to attend Court. Thus the application in the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal was also clearly entertained, heard and disposed of behind the back of the learned counsel for the C.B.I. violating the principles of natural justice. Thus the application in the case of Ram Prasad Jaiswal was also clearly entertained, heard and disposed of behind the back of the learned counsel for the C.B.I. violating the principles of natural justice. Thus, if a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, cannot be entertained and heard without notice to the State or the prosecuting agency, then on the same reasoning and logic, a correction application in the same matter also cannot be heard without putting the other side to notice. 36. The contention of the learned counsel for CBI that they were under a bona fide impression of the application being taken up on 12.12.2013 is correct as it stands corroborated by the recital to that effect in the application itself. This impression further stands fortified by the fact that the application on 12.12.2013 in the changed circumstances could not have been heard at all as the entire roster of the learned Single Judge had been withdrawn on 12.12.2013 under orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and she was to sit in chambers as it was her last working day. 37. Apart from this, the order dated 11.12.2013, nowhere indicates the background in which the special mention was accepted and not only this there are two orders that have been transcribed on the correction application of Ram Prasad Jaiswal, namely, application No. 365038 of 2013. The order that appears to have been transcribed first in the own handwriting of the learned Judge and duly signed by her reads as under : “Seen. Let the application be corrected accordingly.” The other order which has been passed and which is being defended by the learned counsel for the accused is on a judgment paper duly transcribed by the Stenographer whose name appears on the same which has been signed by the learned Single Judge and is pasted on the overleaf of the aforesaid correction application. The said order reads as under : “Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J. Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 365038 of 2013. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. This is an application for correction in the order dated 5.12.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013 of Ram Prasad Jaiswal. The said order reads as under : “Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J. Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 365038 of 2013. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. This is an application for correction in the order dated 5.12.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4314 of 2013 of Ram Prasad Jaiswal. It is never mentioned in the sections by the Court granting bail as to which offence is substantive or otherwise. It is simplicitor that the accused is granted bail under sections read with other sections which are either in aid or addition. It is for the Court framing the charge who will decide that a particular offence is substantive and other offences are in aid or addition in the substantive offence. As such, there is no necessity for amending any section in the release order by this Court. The correction application is accordingly disposed off. Order Date : 11.12.2013" Our doubts about the manner in which the aforesaid orders came to be passed, which are not mere suspicions, and are based on facts on record, further get confirmed, that the order transcribed in hand as noted above never appears to have been uploaded. Learned counsel for the accused have clearly stated that they are unable to give any explanation as it is an act of the Court over which they have no control. The question as to whether this order was transcribed and was not directed to be uploaded or it was not uploaded by the concerned stenographer may be a subject-matter of administrative inquiry from the stenographer who had uploaded the other order the next day. As far as we know, the practice of transcribing full handwritten orders by a Judge is not in vogue and since times immemorial, they are either type written or are now being uploaded through computers, except for some corrections in hand. We are unable to accept the explanation given by the counsel for the accused also for the reason that the affidavit on behalf of the accused, as a counter to the recall application, itself recites that the learned Judge at first allowed the correction but again she asked not to make correction in the bail applications, by which time some correction had been made in the bail application by the counsel. The corrections were not initialled on account of the intervention of the judge herself. The corrections were not initialled on account of the intervention of the judge herself. These facts were also being communicated on mobile by the pairokar of the accused to the local counsel at Ghaziabad. This dramatic disclosure of information being passed on and received about what was happening in the chambers of the learned Judge also casts a doubt on this unusual manner of disposal of the application. The other order, that is transcribed on the judgment paper on computers, even though said to have been passed on 11.12.2013, has been uploaded admittedly on 12.12.2013 on which day the learned Judge had no roster at all assigned to her. 38. To our mind, the orders appear to be somewhat incongruous, inasmuch as, the application has been directed to be corrected, and on the other hand the typed order records that the Court never mentions the sections while granting bail as to which offence is substantive or otherwise and it should be understood that the accused is granted bail under the sections read with other sections which are either in aid or addition thereto. If the said reasoning is accepted, then no corrections were required at all and the correction application ought to have been rejected, but instead the disposal of the correction application with the aforesaid two orders, out of which one order is hand written and the other came to be uploaded the next day on 12.12.2013, does reflect a procedural gap wide enough to confirm the apprehensions expressed by the division bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the order dated 13.12.2013. 39. The uploading of the order on 12.12.2013, that is on a date when the entire work from the learned Single Judge had been withdrawn, also adds colour to this inappropriate procedure. This Court is not aware of the Hon’ble Judges transcribing orders in their own handwriting in ink when Stenographers and Private Secretaries are available. This could be possible only when Stenographers or Private Secretaries are not available to a Judge, and in the present case when the work was withdrawn from the learned Single Judge on 12.12.2013, no Private Secretary or Stenographer was available to her for the purpose of taking orders, as no work was assigned on the said date. 40. This could be possible only when Stenographers or Private Secretaries are not available to a Judge, and in the present case when the work was withdrawn from the learned Single Judge on 12.12.2013, no Private Secretary or Stenographer was available to her for the purpose of taking orders, as no work was assigned on the said date. 40. We would not say anything further as this is what we have found on record and in such circumstances, we would not hesitate to exercise our discretionary powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. together with the suo-motu powers available to this Court for rectifying its own errors in order to recall the orders dated 11.12.2013. Coming to the allegations of filing an incorrect affidavit against record by the officials of the C.B.I., the fact that incorrect averments were made in relation to the bail orders passed by the Court below have been admitted, and an unqualified apology has been tendered which has been also orally submitted by Sri Singhal on behalf of C.B.I. He however submits that this situation arose on account of the confusion which was generated by the accused Dinesh Kumar Singh himself who got an application moved on 10.12.2013 before the Court below in this regard and a copy whereof has been filed alongwith the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit dated 2.1.2014. 41. To our mind, more capital out of such a mistake, cannot be made by the learned counsel for the accused, apart from what it deserves. It is correct that as per the details of the orders dated 27.7.2012, 24.8.2012 and 8.1.2013 to which our attention has been invited by Sri G.S. Chaturvedi and Sri Dilip Kumar, the averments contained in Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 in support of the recall application are against record. We accordingly, deprecate the filing of such an affidavit more so when such facts are already contained on the record of the bail application. To file an affidavit in panic, without verifying the facts at least those which are already on record, was an inaccurate exercise and was uncaring on the part of the learned counsel as well. 42. Sri Dilip Kumar on this position, has urged that if such a mistake is treated to be an inadvertent error, then the mistakes as pointed out by the accused and their counsel should also be treated to be inadvertent and not deliberate. 42. Sri Dilip Kumar on this position, has urged that if such a mistake is treated to be an inadvertent error, then the mistakes as pointed out by the accused and their counsel should also be treated to be inadvertent and not deliberate. He submits that no motives can be imputed against the accused or the counsel giving rise to any suspicion about their conduct and therefore it will not be an attempt to subvert justice. However, if such an inference is drawn then the same logic should equally apply in relation to the manner in which the recall application was entertained that was admittedly founded on the aforesaid incorrect averments and it should therefore be accordingly rejected. 43. The aforesaid facts are a distressing experience for us as we are called upon to adjudicate on the shortcomings of the litigants and their counsel who have shifted this burden conveniently on our shoulders not only through their explanations but also through their apologies. It is here that we would like to record that lawyers as well as litigants on whom the responsibility rests to assist the Court without maligning the stream of justice should come out with facts and adopt the correct procedure in order to avoid any suspicion or doubt. 44. As noted above the absence of the counsel for the C.B.I. on 11th December, 2013 when the orders were passed on the correction application is clearly attributable to the error, mistake and lapse on the part of either the accused or their counsel. This lapse in our opinion is more grave and loaded with serious consequences, inasmuch as, the same directly also reflects on such a procedure being accepted by the Court. Consequently, an inappropriate procedure adopted, may be an inadvertent exercise, but it has resulted in the undermining of the administration of justice which no doubt weakens the structure of the institution. This did commence the subversion of the due process of law at the instance of the accused or their counsel. 45. The counsel for the accused - Ram Prasad Jaiswal had prayed for preponing of the hearing of his correction application. It was therefore his duty to have informed the learned counsel for the C.B.I. To our mind it was imperative for the counsel and the Court as well to have informed the counsel for the CBI which was not done. 46. It was therefore his duty to have informed the learned counsel for the C.B.I. To our mind it was imperative for the counsel and the Court as well to have informed the counsel for the CBI which was not done. 46. The mentioning of incorrect facts in the affidavit of the C.B.I. also adds to it in the background, that even unintended judicial favours lowers the esteem of the Court for the fault of lawyers. This is directly connected with the faith of the public at large in the institution in which it reposes confidence for realizing the highest sense that is craved for by everyman, the sense of justice. The lawyers and litigants are entitled to adopt the correct procedure with a confidence in order to obtain their due, but it should be clear and unambiguous to remove any doubt of the pretence of such a confidence. It is true that the affidavits that have been brought on record indicate lapses on the part of the lawyers as well, but it should be remembered that even these isolated errors become newsworthy, bringing disrepute to the institution due to such fault or lapse. Affidavits should not be sworn with a casual foundation. 47. On this note we would like to observe that while measuring on the scales of justice, we have kept in mind that the accused made the attempt to gain something for being set at liberty, whereas the prosecution acted even though hurriedly, not for any personal gain but to save the majesty of law and prevent any subversion thereof. The background in which the entire chase was made by the counsel for the C.B.I. within a short-span of less than 24 hours to gather about the status of the correction applications, and filing the recall, was not an act to gain any undue advantage. The speed with which the correction applications were sorted out and orders passed in the chambers of the Judge appears to have taken the counsel for the C.B.I. by surprise. It is quite possible that, had the counsel for the C.B.I. not made this frantic and genuine effort of moving the recall application, the accused would have succeeded in getting themselves set at liberty. It is quite possible that, had the counsel for the C.B.I. not made this frantic and genuine effort of moving the recall application, the accused would have succeeded in getting themselves set at liberty. For that matter we may observe from experience that the counsel for the C.B.I. was virtually made to dance on his feet which may have resulted in the filing of a panic stricken affidavit. This cannot be compared as of equal propensity to the correction applications filed by the accused that were calibrated calculatively. 48. We are however of the opinion that the division bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 13.12.2013 did not simply act upon the said averments contained in Paragraphs 15 to 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the recall application. There were other notable serious facts as observed by us which were duly noticed and then the recall application was entertained. The undue haste reflected was rightly checked by a prompt and timely intervention by the division bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice after being made aware of the above mentioned facts. We do not intend to attribute any motive to the manner in which the correction applications were filed, but when one takes up a cause through a wrong route, then there is an uncontrollable craving to achieve a target, which was done with the passing of the order dated 11.12.2013. This to us appears to be like in a cross-country race when one is tempted to detour and adopt a short cut to somehow win the race, or more precisely like a driver who cuts through a petrol station to avoid a red light. 49. In the background aforesaid, it cannot be said that the counsel for the C.B.I. was not required to be heard when he was concertedly chasing the applications upon having come to know about the same from the officials of the C.B.I. at Ghaziabad that the correction application had been entertained and orders were about to be passed. It is true that the officials of the C.B.I. should have taken more care to verify the facts and should not have relied on the application of Dinesh Kumar Singh that was filed before the Court below as mentioned hereinabove. It is true that the officials of the C.B.I. should have taken more care to verify the facts and should not have relied on the application of Dinesh Kumar Singh that was filed before the Court below as mentioned hereinabove. It is for this reason that they have caused embarrassment to themselves but so far as the recall applications are concerned they for all the reasons given hereinabove have to be entertained. This state of momentary confusion and hasty action, on an undressing of the bare facts which counsel for both the sides have fairly stated, appears to have occurred in the given circumstances. The preparation and filing of correction applications or affidavits by either side should have been preceded by checking and rechecking the procedure as well as the facts, like the dipstick of a auto-mobile engine wiping it off because you never trust the first time. With both the sides trying to get around each other, to put the blame independently of filing an incorrect affidavit on the C.B.I. would be a lopsided view in the aforesaid circumstances. The facts that have emerged may be not leaving marks of infamy, but we should not forget that walls have eyes and stones have ears and as such we cannot afford to be tolerant of such incorrect procedures as that would make Court functioning sufficiently miserable. At times the eyes do not see what the ears hear and vice versa. 50. Having said so, Judges as well have to be careful as many a times they are like a horse in a race who is not aware about the contest having been supposedly fixed. A Judge should not therefore drift away in haste as Court proceedings are under scrutiny of critical eyes and therefore alert function is necessary to avoid making headlines. We have jotted down a true account of this misadventure as the facts should not be allowed to crouch behind the trees nor any distortion should be covered as it would be miscarriage of justice. The Court has no desire to avoid any discovery of unpleasant fact as, it is only its duty to traverse the righteous path, and remove all doubts from the minds of men. Additionally, a mistake of the Court should not harm anyone. The Court has no desire to avoid any discovery of unpleasant fact as, it is only its duty to traverse the righteous path, and remove all doubts from the minds of men. Additionally, a mistake of the Court should not harm anyone. For this we need not remind ourselves of the words of Lord Denning in his Book, The Road to Justice, where he says “ it is a settled principle of our law that justice must not only be done, but it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done.” 51. A Judge has to be discreet, as the strength and failings, faults and virtues of Judges are made a shop talk by disgruntled litigants and indiscreet socialites. There are no permissible degrees of judicial propriety as no variation in levels of toleration are recognized. Principles of high judicial perfection are rigid and inflexible that have to be observed to avoid any distress of character. An expected sense of fairness coupled with reverence for the judicial process is also expected in procedural matters. Nonetheless it has been repeatedly said that Judges, like Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. 52. In the said background whether the attempt of moving the correction applications was an act of justified overconfidence as such corrections are routine, or whether it was an outcome of a remote consuming secret desire to get over the error in a casual way, or whether it was a calibrated move, but the outcome was definitely, as per the facts narrated hereinabove, a subversion of procedure with rash and grave consequences. The facts are barbed with truth and we are compelled to touch upon this painful theme of neglect of procedure. Those who benefited out of the violation of a procedure have to suffer for it. This exercise is no washing of dirty linen in the public, but to prevent the flowing of dirt that may stick. We have to combat the declining trust that may thus be generated, resulting in a shift from thick to thin. Any legal gamesmanship or gymnastic that touches upon the subversion of justice also reflects upon the ideals of the legal profession making it more suspect and embarrassing. The error if any has resulted in an impression of indiscreet performance that should be rectified. 53. Any legal gamesmanship or gymnastic that touches upon the subversion of justice also reflects upon the ideals of the legal profession making it more suspect and embarrassing. The error if any has resulted in an impression of indiscreet performance that should be rectified. 53. We would further like to add on the issue of undue haste, not only on the part of lawyers, but also an impropriety on the part of the Court that proceeded to pronounce orders without waiting to put the counsel for C.B.I. to notice. The Supreme Court in the case of Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and others, (2004) 2 SCC 65 and Union of India and another v. Malti Sharma, (2006) 9 SCC 262 , has held that a hasty decision is also a mala fide decision even though the aforesaid decisions relate to administrative powers exercised under the relevant statute. 54. We have however been able to lay hands on the decision in the case of Subodh Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (14) SCC 638 (Paras 16 to 26), where the Magistrate had passed a hasty bail order which was cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court declined to interfere with the same and when the matter went up to the Apex Court, the entire facts relating to the passing of a hasty order by a Court was noticed and deprecated in the following words : “Para 22: The undue haste exhibited by the learned Magistrate as well as his decision to hear the bail application on the same day without hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, compelled the learned Sessions Judge to draw adverse inferences against the learned Magistrate.” Having said so and in view of the fact that the principles of natural justice have been violated, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are clearly attracted herein to enable us to recall the orders dated 11.12.2013. The provision is extracted hereinunder for ready reference : “482. The provision is extracted hereinunder for ready reference : “482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” In our opinion all such ingredients are available, as discussed hereinabove on the peculiar facts of this case, for being invoked to secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise extraordinary situations require extraordinary remedies. 55. At the same time, as pointed out by us at the outset, the entertaining of the correction applications itself may have to be considered when the correction applications are finally heard. The reason is that the issue of jurisdiction to entertain the correction application after the Court has become functus officio in terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C. also arises. Not only this unless there is a typographical or arithmetical error, the prayer for adding substantive sections or granting bail in additional sections has to be considered in the light of Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 56. More alarmingly the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to hear all the three bail applications when only one was nominated to her gains significance. A Court not having been assigned the roster, the presiding judge cannot assume jurisdiction without nomination. There cannot be a presumption of implicit or implied nomination. Needless to mention that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and the powers to nominate a case and the jurisdiction of a learned Judge to hear the same are all well defined and circumscribed as per the parameters laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and others, 1998 (1) SCC 1 (Paragraphs 12 to 23). 57. 57. The full bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice, 1996 AWC 644, was quoted with approval in the following words: “...........The learned Judge then went on to observe: “In view of the above, it is clear that the Chief Justice enjoys a special status not only under the Constitution but also under Rules of Court, 1952 made in exercise of powers conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice alone can determine jurisdiction of various Judges of the Court. He alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or to Judges sitting in Full Bench. He alone has the jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by a Judge sitting alone or which case will be heard by two or more Judges. The conferment of this power exclusively on the Chief Justice is necessary so that various Courts comprising of the Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench etc., work in a co-ordinated manner and the jurisdiction of one Court is not overlapped by other Court. If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the judicial functioning of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The nucleus for proper functioning of the Court is the “self” and “judicial” discipline of Judges which is sought to be achieved by Rules of Court by placing in the hands of the Chief Justice full authority and power to distribute work to the Judges and to regulate their jurisdiction and sittings.” (emphasis ours) 23.The above opinion appeals to us and we agree with it...........” 58. The correction applications were also deficient as has been noted by us hereinabove, but the same are yet to be heard on merits. The High Court in exercise of its powers cannot entertain any miscellaneous application in disposed of matters as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Nazma v. Javed, 2013 (1) SCC 376 . This has also been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, 2008 (1) SCC 474 . The High Court in exercise of its powers cannot entertain any miscellaneous application in disposed of matters as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Nazma v. Javed, 2013 (1) SCC 376 . This has also been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, 2008 (1) SCC 474 . There are other decisions as well and, therefore, the question is also with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to entertain the correction applications, which in turn also reflects upon the jurisdiction to entertain the other two bail applications, which had not been nominated to her. We may, therefore, usefully extract Sections 362 Cr.P.C., and Chapter XVIII Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as follows : “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. Ch. XVIII Rule 18. Application for bail.—[(1) No application for bail shall be entertained unless accompanied by a copy of judgement or order appealed against or sought to be revised and a copy of order passed by the Sessions Judge on the bail application for the applicant and unless the accused has surrendered except where he has been released on bail after conviction under Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Explanation.—The copy of the order refusing bail passed by the Sessions Judge shall either be a certified copy or the copy furnished by the Sessions Judge free of charge to the accused.] (2) Every application for bail in a case which is under investigation or which is pending in a lower Court shall state whether application for bail had or had not been previously made before the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge concerned and the results of such applications, if any. [(3) Save in exceptional circumstances : (a) No order granting bail shall be made on an application unless notice thereof has been given to the Government Advocate and not less than ten days have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of such application. [(3) Save in exceptional circumstances : (a) No order granting bail shall be made on an application unless notice thereof has been given to the Government Advocate and not less than ten days have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of such application. (b) If the application for bail has not been moved within two days after the expiry of the aforesaid period of ten days the applicant or his counsel shall give two days previous notice to the Government Advocate as to the exact date on which such application is intended to the moved. (c) Where the prayer for bail is contained in a petition of appeal or application for revision, notice thereof may be given to the Government Advocate the same day prior to the hearing of such petition or application and the fact of such previous notice having been given, shall be endorsed on such petition or application. Alongwith such notice a certified copy or one attested to be true by the counsel, of the Judgment appealed from or sought to be revised shall also be given to the Government Advocate. (4) Every application for bail shall show prominently in the first page thereof the crime number, the police station by which, and the section or sections and the Act or Rules under which the applicant is being prosecuted or has been convicted and whether such application is the first, second or any such subsequent application moved by him before this Court, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the First Information Report. It shall also state the following particulars, namely: (a) The date of the alleged occurrence; (b) The date of the applicant’s arrest. [The Bench Secretary shall while entertaining a bail application for presentation to the Court Check every page thereof and shall affix a rubber stamp containing his initials on the every page of the bail application and all the annexures thereto before putting it up before the Court in token of his having checked, every page of the application and he shall, thereafter, make the following endorsement on the bail application : “Moved before Hon’ble ................ J. on ................. J. on ................. date.” Similarly the officials whose duty it is to receive the bail application from the Court after orders, shall affix a rubber stamp containing his initials on the first page of the bail application in token of his having checked that all the pages of the bail application bear the rubber stamp of the Bench Secretary. The rubber stamps containing the initials of the Bench Secretary and the official or officials authorised to receive the fresh bail application from the Court shall be supplied to the Bench Secretaries and the officials by the Registrar of the Court. The application shall not be returned to the applicant or his counsel after the above endorsement has been made.] [(5) Every page of the application for bail and every page of the annexures thereto shall bear the full signatures of the applicant or his counsel. (6) In every such application shall be stated the full particulars of the previous applicant or applications, if any, moved in this Court by same application in respect of the same crime and the date or dates on which such previous application or applications had been rejected.]” 59. A demonstration of these statutory provisions would leave no room for doubt that the High Court Rules do not provide for any correction application separately to be moved on the criminal side. Consequently, one may have to fall back upon the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with the circumscription of Section 362 Cr.P.C. A correction can only be allowed when there is an inadvertent typographical or arithmetical error. This may be a mistranscription which is not wilful and unintentional. It is a fault of fact that creeps in ignorance. It is an act of inaccuracy which is not intentional and may also be on account of absence of knowledge. Similarly, a typographical error is attributable to the transcription generated by the mechanical reproduction of the shorthand dictation given by the Court or the Judge where unknowingly or inadvertently a mistake creeps in. Such being the position of typographical and arithmetical errors, to which no motive can be attributed, can be subject-matter of corrections under the inherent powers of the Court. Such being the position of typographical and arithmetical errors, to which no motive can be attributed, can be subject-matter of corrections under the inherent powers of the Court. However, an error of judgment or a conscious omission inspite of the facts correctly disclosed, cannot be subject-matter of correction as understood under Section 362 Cr.P.C., but that is a matter to be gone into when the correction applications are argued. 60. There is no doubt that such issues relating to the jurisdiction of the learned Judge to entertain the applications or even proceed in the matter, therefore, could have been answered only after hearing both counsel and not ex parte. The presence of the counsel for the C.B.I. was, therefore, clearly avoided and the fault squarely lay, with not only the counsel who had not informed the counsel for the C.B.I. but also with the Court that proceeded to hear the matter ex parte without choosing to inform the counsel for the C.B.I. 61. We are, therefore, of the view that the orders dated 11.12.2013 deserve to be recalled. We accordingly recall the orders dated 11.12.2013 and we place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for further appropriate orders to hear the correction applications for the reasons aforesaid and also for consideration of the matter in the light of the observations made in the order dated 13.12.2013 to set at rest the controversy including the issue of jurisdiction of the learned Judge to hear the matters which were not nominated to her as we seriously doubt the powers of the learned Judge to grant bail on the facts that have been noted hereinabove. This may be necessary as the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and for that powers may have to be exercised appropriately in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R. Rathinam (supra). We further direct that the interim arrangement as made with suitable directions to the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court and the authorities below would continue to be in force as per the order dated 13.12.2013 till the correction applications are decided. With the aforesaid directions, the recall applications are allowed.