Judicial magistrate does not have power to review, recall verdict: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 10

In a significant judgment on a judicial magistrate’s authority to re-examine his orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the judicial officer does not have the power to review or recall the verdict on any ground whatsoever after the final decision.

The ruling by Justice Vikas Bahl came in a case where a complaint filed by the State of Punjab through an Inspector (insecticide) against a firm and other accused was dismissed in default as the complainant failed to file the complaint’s copy. But Muktsar Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated September 30, 2019, allowed an application and restored the complaint.

Challenging the order, the counsel for the petitioners contended that the restoration order was absolutely illegal and against law “in as much as it is the settled principle of law that the Judicial Magistrate First Class does not have any power to review the order”.

Referring to a plethora of judgments on the issue, Justice Bahl asserted it was held in a similar matter that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Magistrate to recall/ review his own order once it was passed. The only exception was in cases the order was of interim nature.

It was further observed that the dismissal of a complaint, for default or due to want of prosecution, could not be termed as an interim order. It was a final order and could not be modified, changed or recalled by the magistrate.

Justice Bahl added the court became `functus officio’ and had no power to review or recall its order on any ground whatsoever once the case had been finally decided by a magistrate. “The order, vide which a case has been dismissed in default, whether on the ground of the copy of the complaint having not been supplied or for want of prosecution, would be a final order. Thus, no application for reviewing or recalling of the said order would be maintainable,” Justice Bahl asserted.

In his detailed order, Justice Bahl added even the provisions under Section 362 of the CrPC barred the magistrate from recalling/reviewing such an order. Elaborating, Justice Bahl asserted an order vide which a petition or a complaint has been dismissed in default could not be stated to be a case of clerical or arithmetical error. As such, the impugned order was illegal and liable to be set aside. “Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances as well as the settled principle of law, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated September 30, 2019, is set aside,” Justice Bahl asserted.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.