Criminal Court Can't Review Its Orders In Garb Of Modification/ Clarification: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court has recently asserted that a judgment passed by a criminal court cannot be revised, reopened, or reversed through an application for modification/clarification. The court held that such applications are an abuse of the judicial process and emphasized the need to uphold the integrity of the administration of justice.

A bench comprising Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan was hearing an application filed by ED's Joint Director after nearly eight years of passing of the judgment dated 22.09.2015, seeking modification/ clarification.

The case involved Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM University) which sought the setting aside of a show cause notice and subsequent proceedings under PMLA initiated by the ED.

EIILM University's main contention was that the show cause notice was issued by a Bench lacking a Judicial Member as required under the PMLA. After hearing all parties and examining the relevant provisions of the PMLA, the court had in 2015 concluded that a Judicial Member was essential in cases involving significant legal and factual questions.

The present application sought a clarification as to whether a Member (Judicial) and a Member from the field of Law of the Adjudicating Authority, as mentioned under section 6 (3) (a) of PMLA, were the same.

While informing that the Adjudicating Authority, without a Judicial Member, had confirmed the attachment orders, leading to appeals and remands, the Deputy Solicitor General of India orally submitted that the court could invoke the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to make the necessary amendments.

Adjudicating upon the matter the court referred to previous Supreme Court rulings that denounced the practice of indirectly seeking review or revision of concluded judgments through such applications. The court expressed concern about the abuse of the judicial process and stressed the limited scope of exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The court noted that the applicant had ample opportunity to file a review petition or appeal within the prescribed time but had chosen not to do so for nearly eight years and observed,

"The application in fact states that it sought to comply with the judgment dated 22.09.2015. The present application for modification/clarification is evidently a device to persuade this Court to revisit, reopen and reverse the judgment dated 22.09.2015. This is clearly impermissible".

In view of the same the bench found the petition devoid of any merit and dismissed the same.

Case Title: Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning Vs The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Sik) 6

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment