J&K High Court held that Trial Court Lacks Inherent Authority to Recall or Review Its Own Final Orders

In the case of Feroz Ahmed Zargar & Ors v.  UT of J&K and Others.[i], the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Trial Court does not have the authority to review its own final orders. The Hon’ble High Court further held that in such instances, the aggrieved party’s only recourse is to challenge the order before the High Court. The High Court referred to s. 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), which bars a criminal court from modifying or reviewing its final orders, except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes.

Summary of Facts:

The Petitioners are facing trial in different cases arising out of various FIRs. Petitioner No.1 and No.2 are facing trial for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in FIR No.514/2021 registered at Anantnag Police Station. Petitioners No.3, 4, and 5 are facing charges under the ULAP Act in FIR No.98/2020 at Dooru Anantnag Police Station. Petitioner No.6 is facing charges in FIR No.27/2021 related to explosives and arms offences at Bijbehara Police Station. During the pendency of these trials, all Petitioners were detained under the Public Safety Act, 1978 and lodged in various jails in Uttar Pradesh. The detention orders were quashed by this Hon’ble Court for most of the Petitioners, while for others, the detention orders expired.

Following the quashing or expiry of their detention orders, the Petitioners filed applications before the Trial Court to return to judicial custody. The Trial Court allowed these applications and issued orders to transfer the Petitioners’ custody back to District Jail, Anantnag. These orders, dated 11.08.2023, 31.08.2023, and 17.08.2023, were subsequently challenged by the Respondents before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, in its impugned order dated 02.02.2024, recalled its previous orders, leading to the present challenge by the Petitioners.

Observations of the High Court:

• The Hon’ble High Court noted that the detention orders against Petitioners No. 1 to 6 were either quashed or expired during the pendency of the trial. Following this, the Petitioners applied for the transfer of their custody to District Jail, Mattan Anantnag.
• The Hon’ble High Court observed that s. 362 of the CrPC explicitly states that once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it cannot alter or review the order, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. This, however, is subject to any other provisions in the CrPC or any applicable law in force.
• The Respondents moved the Trial Court to recall its earlier orders, relying on the argument that the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nayeem Rasool vs. UT of J&K & Ors.[ii], had been stayed by the Division Bench. The High Court observed that the only option for the Respondents was to challenge the Trial Court’s orders before the High Court. The Trial Court should have allowed the Respondents to pursue this remedy instead of reviewing its own orders. By recalling its earlier orders, the Trial Court contradicted legal principles set by the Supreme Court and s. 362 of the CrPC, making the impugned order legally untenable.
• Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court noted that the Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 had been released on bail, thus rendering the Petition with respect to these Petitioners infructuous.

Analysis:

The core issue in this case revolves around whether the Trial Court had the authority to recall its own orders directing the shifting of the Petitioners’ custody. In evaluating the arguments presented by both parties, it became clear that the crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of s. 362 of the CrPC, which prohibits the alteration or review of final orders, except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The Supreme Court, in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others.[iii], has clarified that a criminal court does not possess the power to review its own orders unless a provision under the Cr.P.C. or another law grants such a right.

On the other hand, the Respondents contended that undertrial prisoners have no inherent right to choose their place of detention, and the government has discretion over where they are kept. While this argument highlights an administrative aspect, it does not override the legal constraints placed by s. 362 of the CrPC on the Trial Court’s power to review its final orders.

The reliance by the Trial Court on the judgment in Nayeem Rasool’s case (supra), which was stayed by the Division Bench, adds another layer of complexity. Despite the stay, the Trial Court’s decision to recall its earlier orders was legally unsound as it directly contravened the principles established in Adalat Prasad (supra) and s. 362 of the CrPC. This underscores the importance of respecting the boundaries of judicial authority, as set out by the law. In conclusion, the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing its own orders.

Authored by Ascend Legal Editorial Team. The opinions expressed are personal and do not constitute any legal advocacy.