RAVI SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been moved on behalf half of Ravi Sharma-petitioner seeking review of my judgment dated 24.1.89, by which I had dismissed the W.P. brought by the petitioner seeking quashment of the detention order made against him u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988, with a view to prevent him from abetting and financing the export from India of narcotic drugs. One of the points raised in the W.P. was that a copy of the summons issued to the petitioner before recording his statement was not supplied in spite of demand being made to enable the petitioner to make an effective and purposeful representation. While dealing with this point, I held that there is no reference even casually or incidentally made to any written summons being served on the petitioner either in the grounds of detention or in any other document relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the detention order and thus, it was not incumbent upon the authorities to have supplied copy of the said summons to the petitioner. I had in para 17 of the judgment mentioned that I had gone through the grounds of detention as well as copy of the statement of the petitioner and found that there was no reference at all made to any summons having been issued to the petitioner.

(2.) It has been now pointed out to me that no copy of the statement of the petitioner was filed on the record and thus, this Court made a mistake in making a reference to the copy of the statement in its order. It is true that no copy has been filed on the record at the time the arguments were addressed in Court. However, it is not again disputed before me that while addressing the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner had read a portion of the statement of the petitioner from the copy of the statement of the petitioner but unfortunately the said copy of the statement was not placed on the record by the petitioner's counsel. Due to this fact and on account of some misapprehension, this Court mentioned about having read the copy of the statement. At any rate, even if the observation of this Court with regard to having read the contents of the statement of the petitioner from the copy of the statement are omitted from the judgment, the same would not have any impact on the conclusion reached by me in deciding the petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in case this Court had been supplied the copy of the statement of the petitioner, then the" contents of the statement of the petitioner would have shown that a written summons had been served on the petitioner and thus, this Court could have come to the conclusion that there had been made a casual reference to the written summons in the copy of the statement of the petitioner which was relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the detention order and hence, the petitioner was legally entitled to have copy of the said summons to enable him to make an effective and pur poseful representation. It is now hypothetical to say as to what could have been the decision of this Court in case the copy of the statement of the petitioner had been filed on the record. The legal position as far as the scope of the review is concerned is quite clear. The court can review its judgment only if it is shown from the record that any. error of fact or law had been committed by this Court. As already mentioned above, the only error of fact pointed out is that this Court assumed mistakenly that a copy of the statement of the petitioner was on the record which was not a fact. However, even if this particular observation of this Court is considered deleted from the judgment that would not mean that the petitioner is entitled to have review of the judgment by filing the copy of the statement of the petitioner on record alongwith the review application. Ignoring the copy of the statement of the petitioner which was not there on the record when the judgment was given, there is no apparent error committed by the Court which could justify this Court to review its judgment. The record would be then considered bereft of the copy of the statement of the petitioner and taking, the record as it is it cannot be said that any error of law or fact had been committed by this Court in its decision by which the petition had been dismissed.