Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has once again emphasized the principle of finality in criminal proceedings by dismissing a recall application filed in connection with a 1982 murder conviction. The case, titled Laxman vs. State of U.P., was decided by a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, where the Court held that a judgment once signed cannot be altered or reviewed by a criminal court under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now reflected as Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The case revolved around the appellant, Laxman, who was convicted in a decades-old murder case and had sought a recall of the High Court’s March 2025 judgment confirming his conviction. His main contention was that the decision had been rendered in his absence, allegedly without proper representation, as his original counsel had passed away years earlier and he had not been informed of the proceedings. On the other hand, the State opposed the plea by contending that the appellant had absconded for over three decades, evading repeated court summons, non-bailable warrants, and coercive measures, leaving the Court with no option but to proceed on merits. Against this backdrop, the High Court dismissed the recall plea, stressing that Section 362 CrPC imposes a strict bar on review or recall of judgments except for clerical or arithmetical corrections, and that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot be invoked to bypass this prohibition.

Arguments of the Appellant:

The appellant’s side, represented through new counsel after decades, argued that the March 2025 judgment upholding his conviction was passed ex parte without affording him an opportunity to defend himself in appeal. His counsel pointed out that his appeal had been duly admitted in 1983 after he challenged his conviction in the murder case, and he was even granted bail. However, circumstances changed over the years as his original lawyer passed away, leaving the appellant uninformed about the proceedings. It was contended that the appellant had been residing with his brother in Punjab for a long time and was unaware of the coercive steps taken against him. His family members too did not inform him about the developments in the case. It was only on May 30, 2025, that he came to know about the High Court’s judgment, after which he promptly surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on June 2, 2025, and has been in custody since then. On this basis, it was argued that the judgment, having been delivered without his knowledge and representation, ought to be recalled in the interest of justice.

The appellant further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs. State of Bihar [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597], where the Court had observed that an admitted criminal appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that the accused is absconding. By analogy, counsel argued, once an appeal has been admitted, it must be adjudicated with the participation of the appellant or his legal representatives, and dismissing or deciding it ex parte violates principles of natural justice. Stress was laid on the fact that the right to be heard in appeal is a substantive right, and denial of the same vitiates the process. It was therefore urged that the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) to recall the judgment, since doing so would serve the cause of justice and prevent miscarriage of justice in a case where the accused was unable to defend himself due to reasons beyond his control.

Arguments of the State:

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, strongly opposed the recall plea, maintaining that the March 2025 judgment was not a dismissal for non-prosecution but a detailed decision on merits after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record. The State emphasized that the appellant had remained absconding for over 30 years despite multiple opportunities to appear, and the record of Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983 clearly reflected repeated issuance of non-bailable warrants and reports from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, confirming his untraceable status. Far from being unaware, the appellant had deliberately evaded proceedings, thereby frustrating the course of justice. The State argued that the High Court had been compelled to proceed on merits due to the appellant’s prolonged non-appearance, which indicated a conscious and deliberate act of absconding rather than mere miscommunication or ignorance.

The State distinguished the present case from Dhananjay Rai’s case, noting that in that matter the appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution, whereas here, the appeal was adjudicated fully on the merits of the evidence. Therefore, the ratio of Dhananjay Rai had no application. Furthermore, the State relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Bakshi and Ors. v. R.P. Khosla and Anr. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 844], which reiterated the settled principle that Section 362 CrPC bars any review or recall of a judgment once signed, except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. It was stressed that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised in contravention of this statutory bar. Allowing the recall plea, the State argued, would set a dangerous precedent that would undermine the finality of criminal proceedings and embolden convicts to abscond and later seek recall under the guise of lack of knowledge.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, after carefully perusing the submissions and record, dismissed the recall application. The Court first noted that the impugned judgment of March 2025 was a full-fledged adjudication on merits where evidence was re-appreciated and the conviction of the appellant was confirmed. It was not a case of dismissal for non-appearance or non-prosecution. The Court also observed that the appellant had been granted multiple opportunities to appear over the course of three decades, but he consistently avoided the proceedings. Non-bailable warrants were issued against him, and even his sureties had failed to produce him. The CJM, Etawah, had filed multiple reports stating that despite sustained efforts, the appellant and his family could not be traced.

The Bench categorically held that the appellant had deliberately absconded and sought to give a false impression that his whereabouts were unknown to anyone. No documentary evidence was produced to substantiate his claim that he was residing in Punjab with his brother and unaware of the proceedings. The Court observed that in such circumstances, he could not take advantage of his own prolonged non-compliance and negligence.

Turning to the legal position, the Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC places a complete embargo on review or alteration of criminal judgments once signed, save for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. This statutory bar, the Bench emphasized, cannot be circumvented by invoking the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). Citing Vikram Bakshi (supra), the Court stressed that finality of criminal adjudications is a vital aspect of the justice system, and allowing recall in such situations would defeat this principle. The Bench further clarified that the reliance placed on Dhananjay Rai was misplaced, as that case dealt with dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution, whereas in the present matter the appeal was adjudicated on merits.

Concluding its analysis, the Court held that the recall application filed under Section 528 BNSS along with delay condonation application was not maintainable as it was barred by Section 362 CrPC (Section 403 BNSS). The Court, therefore, dismissed the application, observing that the appellant had evaded the judicial process for more than thirty years and could not be permitted to reopen concluded proceedings through a recall plea.