Holding

Section 482 cannot be used to recall a final order after merits have been decided, but the High Court must reconsider the appellant’s age issue under Section 20AA of the Food Adulteration Act.

Summary

Mohd. Yaseen was convicted under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed and a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court was also rejected. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to recall the revision order, arguing that the High Court erred in holding that Section 482 could not be invoked after a final decision on merits and that his age (under 18) should invoke Section 20AA of the Food Adulteration Act, entitling him to probation. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view that Section 482 cannot be used to disturb a final order, but observed that the question of the appellant’s age had not been properly considered and remanded the matter to the High Court to examine the applicability of Section 20AA. The appeals were disposed of with the remand.

Issues considered

Whether Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked to recall a revision order after the appeal has been decided on merits.
Whether the appellant’s age being under 18 at the time of the offence makes Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 applicable, thereby affecting sentencing and probation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 360, s. 482
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16, s. 20AA, s. 7
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Subjects

Criminal ProcedureSection 482Review jurisdictionFunctus officioAge of accusedProbationPrevention of Food Adulteration ActAppealRevisionRemand

Judgment

A MOHD. YASEEN
v.
STATEOFU.P.

JULY 17, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]

!-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482-Appellant convicted under
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954---Conviction upheld by Appellate
C Court-Revision rejected-Petition u/s. 482 to recall that order-High Court
held that once the appeal has been decided on merits, it is not open to
exercise power under s. 482-Held: High Court right in holding that the
application under s. 482 is to be dismissed

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-s. 20AA-Adulteration in
D food-Accused raising plea of being under age of 18 years on the date of
occurrence and seeking grant of probation-Question relating to age of the +-
accused not considered in proper perspective by First Appellate Court and
High Court-Held, the issue was vital-Hence matter remanded to High
Court.

E Appellant was convicted under ss. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
He filed appeal but the same was dismissed. Revision petition subsequently
filed before the High Court was rejected. Petition under Section 482 CrPC
was filed to recall the order. High Court dismissed the petition holding that
F once the appeal has been decided on merits, power u/s. 482 CrPC could not
be exercised. f

In appeals to this Court it is contended that the High Court erred in
holding that s.482, CrPC had no role to play and further that the age of
--Appellant being less than 18 years on the date ofoccurrence, s. 20AA of the
G Act was applicable and probation was to be granted.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court held that once the appeal has been decided on
merits it is not open to exercise power under Section 482, CrPC. The High
H 380
MOHD. YASEENv. STATEOFU.P.[PASAYAT,J.) 381

Court rightly observed that the application under Section 482, CrPC is to bti A
dismissed. (Paras 5 and 9J (382-F, G; 383-F)

State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agrawal, AIR (1979) SC 87 and Hari
Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors., JT (2000) Supp 2 SC 394,
relied on.
B
2. However, it is a case where question n:lating to age of the accused-
appellant has not been considered in the proper perspective by the first
Appellate Court and the High Court. If the appellant succeeds in showing that
he was less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence the applicability of
Section 20AA of the Act has to be considered. This plea was not specifically C
taken before the trial Court and only some documents were filed betore the
First Appellate Court The trial Court did not get the opportunity to examine
the same. The First Appellate Court did not find any substance in the plea ~s
the documents were not proved. Since it is a vital issue which has substantial
bearing on the subject matter of dispute, the matter is remanded to the High
Court to consider acceptability of the plea relating to age and decide the matter D
afresh in accordance with law. [Para 11 [ (384-A, B, q

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1039 of 2001.

From the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2000 & 27 .7.2000 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5720 of E
2000.

WITH

Crl. A. No. I 040 of 200 l.
F
B.S. Jain, J.P. Singh and Goodwill lndeevar for the Appellant.

S. W.A. Qadri and Pradeep Misra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. l. These two appeals are inter-linked. T~e
G
order under challenge in Crl. A. No. I 039 of 200 l relates to an order dat¢d
15.12.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court
dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The said application was filed to recall
the order dated 27. 7 .2000 passed in Criminal Revision No. 489 of 1986. The H
. -I
I

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A said order is the subject matter of challenge in Crl. A. No. I 040 of200 I. A brief
reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

2. The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections
7 and 16 of the Prevention ofFood Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act').
The learned Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bareilly, found the
B accused guilty and convicted him as afore-noted and sentenced him to rigorous
imprisonment for- one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default
stipulation.
.•-
3. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions
C Judge, Bareilly. A revision was filed before the High Court. On the date fixed
i.e. 27. 7.2000 none appeared for the appellant. Shri S.A.N. Shah, advocate who
appeared stated that he has no instructions to conduct the case. The High
Court perused the records and after hearing learned Government Advocate
found that the appellate Court had elaborately dealt with the evidence on
record and on perusal of the materials on record had rightly dismissed the
D petition. An application to recall the order was purportedly filed under Section
482 of the Code stating that Shri S.A.N. Shah was not the authorized lawyer.
The revision petition in fact had been filed by Shri U.N. Sharma whose name
was not printed in the cause list.

4. When the appellant was not represented the High Court sent notice
E to the appellant to engage a counsel to defend his case, but no proof of
service was there. It was further submitted that the High Court has erroneously
held that Section 482 of the Code had no role to play. Additionally, it is
submitted that the appellant had produced the certificate of his age and
material in that regard has been placed before the appellate Court but it did
F not consider the same.

5. It is to be noted that the appellant had taken a definite stand before
the First Appellate Court about his age being less than 18 years. Reference
was made to Section 20AA of the Act to contend that the probation was to
be granted. The High Court did not accept the plea and held that once the
G appeal has been decided on merits it is not open to exercise power under
Section 482 of the Code.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the order
passed.

H 7. In State o/Orissa v. Ram Chander Agrawal, AIR (1979) SC 87 it was I .
MOHD. YASEENv. STATEOFU.P.[PASAYAT.J.) 383
noted in paragraph 20 as follows: A
" .. This decision instead of supporting the respondent clearly Jays
down, following UJ.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay. AIR (1955) SC 633
that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in
exercise of its appellate or its revisionsal jurisdiction, no review or
revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no B
provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would enable the
High Court to review the same or to exercise the revisional jurisdiction ..
The provisions of section 561 A of the Code cannot be invoked for
exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the ·Code."

8. In Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors., JT (2000) C
Supp 2 SC 394 the position was re-iterated in para 10 as follows:

"Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed
it judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the
same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The section is D
based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is
finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a
specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to
entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of
final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a
map~~r prescribed by law. The court becomes functus officio the ·E
moni .. tt the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order
cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or
arithmetical error. ... "

9. Therefore, the High Court rightly observed that the application under F
Section 482 of the Code is to be dismissed.

10. So far as the other appeal is concerned, it is to be noted that a .
specific plea was taken that the age of the accused is less than I 8 years.
Section 20AA of the Act reads as follows:

"20AA- Application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and G
section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Nothing·
contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974), shall
apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that
person is under eighteen years of age." H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.

A 11. If therefore the appellant succeeds in showing that he was less than
18 years of age on the date of occurrence the applicability of Section 20AA
has to be considered. This plea was not specifically taken before the trial
Court and only some documents were filed before the First Appellate Court.
The trial Court did not get the opportunity to examine the same. The First
B Appellate Court did not find any substance in the plea as the documents were
not proved. A specific plea was taken before the High Court in the revision
petition about unsustainability of the conclusion. It is a case where question
relating to age of the accused has not been considered in the proper perspective
by the first Appellate Court and the High Court. Since it is a vital issue which
has substantial bearing on the subject matter' of dispute, we remand the matter
C to the High Court to consider acceptability of the plea relating to age and
decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

12. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

8.8.B. Appeals disposed of.

f