NAVINBHAI BHOGILAL SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of an order which came to be passed in Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1992 on 31-7-1992 by us. The order passed in Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1992 which is sought to be reviewed reads as under :

(2.) The fact that the order was passed in Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1992 and further fact that a criminal application has been filed for getting it reviewed prima facie itself may appear to be non-maintainable because so far as the Criminal Law is concerned, there is no provision for review. However, neither the learned A,P.P. Mr. Rawal appearing for the State nor learned Advocate Mr. B. B. Naik appearing for the Union of India has raised this point and very correctly so, because the matter involves liberty of a citizen and Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1992 was in any case under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. We are therefore, proceeding on the basis that an order passed therein can be reviewed.

(3.) However, before doing so, we should specify one thing namely that this question has been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Gujarat University v. Sonal P. Shah and Ors., reported in [1982 (1)] XXIII (1) GLR 171. The learned Judges in that decision, have laid down that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in Order 47 are not applicable to the High Court's power of review in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution and that the said powers are to be exercised by the High Court only to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors, which means that an error which could be felt by simple touch of an order and not which could be dug out after a long drawn out process of argumentation and ratiocination. It has been laid down that the inherent powers, though ex facie plenary are not to be treated as unlimited or unabridged as they are to be invoked on the ground analogous to the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1, namely (1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which the party seeking the review could not produce at the time when the earlier order sought to be reviewed was made, despite exercise of due diligence; (2) existence of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (3) existence of any analogous grounds. When we turn to Order 47 itself, so far as the aforesaid third eventuality is concerned, the actual words are "any other sufficient cause". However, in view of the preceding two fact situations envisaged by 0. 47(l)(c), the learned Judges of the Full Bench have referred to the third fact situation as existence of any analogous ground.