Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an application seeking modification, recall, or setting aside of a prior judgment concerning alleged unauthorized land conversion for brick field operations. The court stated that no clerical or arithmetical error existed in the previous judgment and that the petitioner’s plea did not meet the legal criteria for a review under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court stated that any erroneous decision, if alleged, must be addressed through an appeal rather than a review.

The case originated from a written complaint received on April 4, 2013, by the Officer-in-Charge of Balagarh Police Station from the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (B.L. & L.R.O.), Balagarh, Hooghly. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had established an unauthorized brick field under the name ‘M/s. Poddar Brick Field’ at Mouza Guptiparachar, J.L. No. 10, P.S. Balagarh, in violation of Section 4(C) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Based on this complaint, Balagarh P.S. Case No. 83/13 was registered on April 4, 2013, under Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. After an investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on May 31, 2013, bearing Charge Sheet No. 110 of 2013, under the same section against the petitioner.

The petitioner filed a revisional application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Calcutta High Court, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings being G.R. Case No. 493/2013. However, after hearing both parties, the Single Bench dismissed the criminal revision petition on November 28, 2018, stating that a prima facie case had been established under Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Following this, the petitioner filed a fresh application, CRAN 4 of 2019 (Old CRAN 381 of 2019), seeking modification, recall, or setting aside of the November 28, 2018, judgment. The petitioner’s legal representatives contended:

1. The judgment contained apparent errors and failed to consider binding judicial precedents cited by the petitioner.

2. The court omitted essential findings from prior judgments relied upon by the petitioner, amounting to a clerical mistake.

3. The Single Bench erroneously disregarded fundamental judicial principles and failed to address a crucial legal question.

4. The application was maintainable under Section 482 of the CrPC despite the bar imposed by Section 362, as there existed errors apparent on the face of the record.

Conversely, the State opposed the application, arguing that it was an attempt to reargue the case in the guise of a review petition. The State’s counsel contended:

1. The application was a disguised appeal rather than a legitimate request for recall or modification.

2. The judgment was rendered on merits and did not contain any clerical or arithmetical mistakes.

3. Section 362 of the CrPC imposes strict limitations on reviewing final judgments.

4. The argument that binding precedents were ignored was baseless, as the court had made a conscious determination on the legal issues raised.

The court undertook a thorough examination of the scope of judicial review under Section 362 of the CrPC and reaffirmed its limited nature. The judgment reiterated:

“The power of review or recall or modify is a limited power and would be governed by Section 362 of the CrPC.”

The court further clarified the conditions under which a judgment may be reconsidered, stating that a review may be permissible if:

• New and significant evidence is discovered, which could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

• There exists a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

The court stated that an error requiring a process of reasoning does not qualify as an ‘error apparent on record’ and held:

“An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record.”

It also cited past judgments, cautioning against frivolous review motions that could compromise the finality of judicial decisions. Quoting precedent, the court observed:

“Frivolous motions for review would ignite the ‘gambling’ element in litigation, with the finality of judgments even by the highest court, being left in suspense.”

Addressing the petitioner’s claim that the court had ignored certain precedents, the judgment stated:

“An incorrect interpretation of provisions of law or interpretation of judgments relied by the petitioner cannot be constituted as a ground for review, recall, or modification of the earlier judgment.”

The court referred to previous rulings that underscored the finality of judgments and the restrictive scope of Section 362. It noted that the petitioner’s argument relied on an expansive interpretation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, which the court found to be untenable.

The judgment referred to key Supreme Court precedents that have consistently upheld the restrictions imposed by Section 362, asserting that the provision serves to protect the sanctity of judicial decisions. The court observed that while inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC exist, they cannot be invoked to circumvent a statutory bar on review or recall.

The court ultimately dismissed the application, holding that the prior decision had been made on merits and did not suffer from any clerical or arithmetical errors. The judgment concluded:

“In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not repose confidence on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there is error apparent on the face of the record rather it was decided on merit. It may be erroneous but that does not come within the purview of clerical or arithmetical error.”

The court further stated that any alleged misinterpretation of legal provisions or judicial precedents does not provide grounds for review, stating:

“The review, recall, or modification of a judgment has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise.’ There is a sharp distinction between an erroneous decision that can only be appealed against and an error apparent on the face of the record.”

Accordingly, the application was dismissed, and the court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.

Case Title: Sankar Podder v. The State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number: CRAN 4/2019 (Old CRAN 381 of 2019) in CRR 508 of 2017
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]