Can Criminal Courts Review Their Own Judgments? Supreme Court Says No, With Limited Exceptions

Criminal Courts Review Bar is Absolute

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that criminal courts review powers are strictly limited under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that once a criminal court signs a judgment or final order, it becomes functus officio. This means the court has no authority to reopen or alter the decision, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors or when expressly permitted by law.

The Court underlined that the prohibition is absolute and cannot be bypassed using inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. It emphasized that the principle of finality in criminal proceedings must be respected to avoid endless litigation.

Exceptions to the Criminal Courts Review Prohibition

While the bar on criminal courts review is strict, the Supreme Court carved out five exceptional circumstances where recall may be permissible. These include:
(a) when a statute expressly provides such power;
(b) when the court inherently lacked jurisdiction;
(c) when fraud or collusion was practiced on the court;
(d) when a mistake by the court caused prejudice; and
(e) when a necessary party was not served or was deceased, leading to non-representation.

The bench clarified that these exceptions apply only when the grounds were unavailable at the time of the original proceedings. Courts cannot allow parties to revive old disputes on grounds deliberately withheld earlier.

Case Background: High Court Order Challenged

The ruling came in an appeal filed by Vikram Bakshi and others, who challenged a Delhi High Court order dated May 5, 2021. The High Court had recalled its earlier judgment from August 13, 2020, which disposed of a petition under Section 340 CrPC for prosecution based on allegations of perjury.

The recall was sought by invoking Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the Company Petition (CP 114 of 2007) before the Company Law Board had been withdrawn prior to the 2020 judgment. The High Court accepted this argument and allowed a review.

However, the Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature, and therefore governed exclusively by the CrPC. Since the CrPC is a self-contained code, provisions of the CPC cannot be imported unless expressly permitted. This meant that the review application itself was not maintainable.

Court’s Analysis on Finality of Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court stressed that the withdrawal of the company petition was a fact available to the opposing party during the original hearing. Instead of disclosing this, they had represented that the matter was still pending before the National Company Law Tribunal. The Court said this amounted to an intentional attempt to mislead.

It further observed that the recall did not qualify as a “procedural review,” which is sometimes permissible, but instead amounted to a “substantive review.” Since substantive reviews are expressly barred under Section 362 CrPC, the High Court’s order was invalid.

The bench concluded that permitting such actions would erode the principle of finality in judicial decisions. It stated, “Such an act to undermine the finality of judicial proceedings cannot be permitted.” Consequently, the impugned High Court order was set aside as being contrary to the law governing criminal courts review.

Case Title: Vikram Bakshi and Others v. R.P. Khosla and Another