Case Note & Summary
The case involved a review petition filed by the informant of a First Information Report (FIR) who was not included as a party in a transfer petition concerning the trial of a criminal case. The review petitioner lodged FIR No. 39/2016 under Section 389/34 of the Indian Penal Code, leading to a charge sheet against several accused. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons, but the accused did not appear, prompting a transfer petition filed by some of the accused under Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Supreme Court initially allowed the transfer petition without the review petitioner being notified, which led to the filing of a miscellaneous application by the review petitioner that was subsequently dismissed. The review petition challenged the earlier orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice and the absence of the review petitioner in the transfer proceedings. The court analyzed the submissions, noting that the review petition was maintainable despite the dismissal of the miscellaneous application, as the grounds for review differ from those for recall. The court found that the order was passed without issuing notice, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the court allowed the review petition, recalled the previous order, and revived the transfer petition, allowing time for the parties to file counter affidavits and rejoinders.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Review of Orders - Maintainability of Review Petition - Article 137 of the Constitution, Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - The review petition was deemed maintainable despite the dismissal of a previous miscellaneous application, as the grounds for review differ from those for recall. The court emphasized the right to review under Article 137 and the necessity to correct errors apparent on the record (Paras 13-14). B) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Criminal Proceedings - Inclusion of Parties - Section 406 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The review petitioner was not made a party in the transfer petition, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the order was passed without issuing notice, constituting an error that warranted review (Paras 17-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition was maintainable and if there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier orders.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled the order dated 18.05.2018, and revived the transfer petition. The review petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 4, and time was granted for filing counter affidavits and rejoinders.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- error apparent on the face of the record
- principles of natural justice
- transfer of criminal proceedings
