1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State.

2. All these applications are filed by the concerned applicants for recalling of the common oral judgment dated 14.10.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.17697 of 2021 and allied matters.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya for the concerned applicants and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent – State.  

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya appearing for the applicants submitted that present applicants filed Criminal Misc. Application No.17697 of 2021 and allied matters under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), wherein, the applicants have prayed that they may be granted pre-arrest bail at the time of and in the event of their arrest in connection with file No. DCST/ENF-2/AC-6/CONFIDENTIAL/2021-22 registered with office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement, Division-2, Ahmedabad. It is submitted that this Court, vide common oral judgment dated 14.10.2021, rejected the said applications. However, on the grounds stated in the memo of the present applications, the said common judgment be recalled.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has mainly contended that the concerned applicants raised several contentions in the applications filed by them, however, all the contentions are not dealt with in the common judgment dated 14.10.2021 by this Court. It is further submitted that the learned advocate for the applicants referred various provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GGST Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder. However, the said provisions are not referred to in the common judgment. It is further submitted that during the course of oral submissions, learned advocate has placed on record the copies of the complaint lodged against three persons. However, there is no name of the applicants in the complaint filed against three different persons viz. Afzal Saujani, Mohammad Abbas Rafikali Meghani and Ms. Minaben Rangsinh Rathod. Thus, in the said complaints filed against those three persons, there is no reflection of any role of the applicants herein. Thus, when the aforesaid common judgment is rendered by this Court without adverting to all the factual matrix placed before this Court and the legal issues raised, the said common judgment be recalled.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has submitted that under Section 362 of the Code, this Court is not empowered to review its own judgment, however, under certain circumstances, order passed by the Criminal Court can be recalled. In support of the said submission, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Anr., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1232. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by this Court in the case of Rashidabanu W/o. Mohammad Asif Mohammad Husen Singwala v. State of Gujarat & Ors. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Raj Narain v. State, reported in 1959 CrLJ 543.  

7. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the applicants has, therefore, urged that the aforesaid common judgment dated 14.10.2021 be recalled.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin has vehemently opposed this application. It is submitted that learned advocate for the applicants has tried to re-argue the case of the applicants on merits. It is further contended that while dismissing the applications filed by the applicants, this Court has considered the facts of the present case as well as the provisions of law relied upon and referred to by the learned advocate for the applicants. This Court has also examined the separate confidential compilation submitted by the prosecution. It is submitted that relevant material was shown to the Court and the same material is provided to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the present applicants and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has kept the said material presently in a sealed cover with the Registrar Judicial, Supreme Court. Thus, this Court, after considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the applicants and the prosecution, has passed the common judgment dated 14.10.2021 and therefore the said judgment may not be recalled, as prayed for by the applicants. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that an order passed by the Criminal Court cannot be reviewed as per the provision contained in Section 362 of the Code. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that even as per the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the applicants, the order can be recalled under certain circumstances. However, the case of the present applicants does not fall in any of the circumstances referred in the aforesaid two decisions. It is, therefore, urged that these applications be dismissed.

9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that by way of filing the present applications, the applicants have tried to re-argue the case on merits. Learned advocate for the applicants has not disputed the fact that in view of the provision of Section 362 of the Code, Criminal Court is not having power to review its own judgment. However, by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Agarwal (supra) and order passed by this Court in the case of Rashidabanu W/o. Mohammad Asif Mohammad Husen Singwala (supra), learned advocate for the applicants has tried to canvas that under certain circumstances, order can be recalled by the Criminal Court. Thus, this Court would first of all like to examine the aforesaid two decisions.

10. In the case of Rashidabanu W/o. Mohammad Asif Mohammad Husen Singwala (supra), this Court was dealing with the special criminal application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While considering the application filed for recalling of the order, this Court has considered various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter observed that the Court can recall its judgment and order under certain circumstances, and more particularly, when the order is passed in breach of principles of natural justice.

11. In the case of Vishnu Agarwal (supra), an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in Criminal Revision Application. When the Criminal Revision Application was listed before the concerned High Court, no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist, though the counsel for the respondents appeared and the concerned High Court passed an order. Subsequently, application was moved for recall of the order alleging that the case was shown in the computer list and not in the main list of the High Court, hence, learned counsel of the revisionist had not noted the case and hence he did not appear. While considering the said facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the said application was filed for recalling of the order and not for review. While considering the recall petition, the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party.

12. Now, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, if the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the applicants are carefully examined, it is revealed that the learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that this Court has not properly dealt with the provisions of law relied upon by the advocate, while passing the common judgment dated 14.10.2021. It is further contended that three different complaints filed against three different persons were placed on record during the course of hearing, however, there is no reference in the order passed by this Court and therefore mainly on this ground, the common judgment dated 14.10.2021 be recalled.

13. It is pertinent to note at this stage that this Court, while passing the common judgment dated 14.10.2021, has considered all the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the applicants. In para 4 of the judgment dated 14.10.2021, this Court has recorded the contentions of learned advocate of the applicants including filing of the returns in the form of GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3B. This Court has also observed that learned advocate for the applicants has referred various provisions of the Act. Thereafter, in para 5 of the order, the provisions contained under Sections 39, 65, 66, 67, 73 and 74 of the GGST Act are also referred. In para 6, provisions of Section 69 and 70 of GGST Act are also referred. Thus, it is not correct on the part of the learned advocate for the applicants that this Court has not referred any provisions of law relied upon by the learned advocate.  

14. This Court has also considered the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and also considered the separate compilation provided by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is a reference with regard to the complaints filed against four persons including one Mr. Afzal. The said aspect is referred in para 13 of the decision. This Court has also dealt with the contention with regard to the cancellation of the registration of the concerned dummy firm with retrospective effect. After considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the parties and after considering the decisions upon which reliance was placed by them, this Court passed the common oral judgment dated 14.10.2021.

15. It appears that learned advocate for the applicants has tried to re-argue the case by filing these applications for recalling of the order, which is not permissible. This Court is of the view that by way of filing these applications, applicants have indirectly requested this Court to review its own judgment, which is not permissible. If the aforesaid two decisions, upon which reliance is placed by learned advocate for the applicants, are carefully examined, it is revealed that the order can be recalled under certain circumstances only. In both the aforesaid cases, the orders were passed by the concerned Court in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore on that ground the orders were recalled. In the present case, it is not the case of the applicants that while passing the common judgment dated 14.10.2021, this Court has violated the principles of natural justice. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, if the facts of the present case are examined, this Court is of the view that the case of the applicants does not fall under any of the categories mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid decisions.

16. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, these applications, which are filed for recalling of the common judgment dated 14.10.2021, are required to be dismissed.

Accordingly, all these applications are dismissed. Rule is discharged.