The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that a trial court cannot review its final orders, reinforcing the principle that any challenge to such orders must be taken to the High Court. This decision came after the trial court recalled an order concerning the transfer of detainees’ custody. This relied on a judgment that had already been stayed by a division bench of the High Court.
Key Points of the Ruling
CrPC Section 362: The court emphasized that Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) prohibits criminal courts from altering or reviewing their final orders, except for clerical or arithmetic corrections.
Trial Court’s Error: In this case, the trial court had initially approved the transfer of petitioners to a jail. The jail is situated in Anantnag, Jammu & Kashmir, from Uttar Pradesh. However, considering a judgment from the High Court, had been stayed. The trial court later recalled its order. The High Court ruled that this was not permitted.
Supreme Court Precedent: The High Court referenced the 2004 Supreme Court ruling in Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal. It overruled the earlier position allowing criminal courts to review their own orders.
Legal Provisions: The court pointed out that the trial court’s actions were in contradiction to established legal provisions and the rulings of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the recalling of the order was set aside.
Background of the Case
The petitioners were facing trial under various laws, including the IPC, Arms Act, and UAPA. They had been detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA). They had been transferred to jails in Uttar Pradesh during their trial. But, sought a transfer back to judicial custody in Jammu & Kashmir. The trial court initially granted this request but later recalled the order after relying on a judgment that was stayed by the division bench.
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision underlines the importance of adhering to the principles outlined in the CrPC. Additionally, vital to follow prior Supreme Court judgments. It has set aside the trial court’s decision to recall its final orders. Thus, leaving the respondents with the option to seek an appropriate remedy through higher legal channels.
