Review Petition (Crl.) No. 453 of 2012 in W.P. (Crl.) 135 of 2008 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Case: Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati and Ors.. Supreme Court

Case Number:Review Petition (Crl.) No. 453 of 2012 in W.P. (Crl.) 135 of 2008 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Party Name:Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati and Ors.
Counsel:For Appearing Parties: Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Harish Salve, S.C. Mishra, Sr. Advs., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Kapil Mishra, Abhinav Shrivastava, D.L. Chidananda, T.A. Khan, Arvind Kumar Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad, Kamini Jaiswal, Prashant Bhushan, Anupam Bharti, Shashank Singh, Pyoli Swatija, Akhilesh Karla, Rohit Kr. Singh and P. Narasimhan, Advs.
Judges:P. Sathasivam, C.J.I. and Dipak Misra, J.
Issue:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1), 13(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order 47, Rule 1, Order 47, Rule 1(1); Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order 40, Rule 1, Order 40, Rule 5; Constitution of India - Articles 32, 136, 137, 145; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 494
Citation:2013 (5) ABR 1267, AIR 2013 SC 3301, 2013 (3) ALT 501 (Cri), 2013 (4) CTC 882, 2013 (4) RCR 75 (Civil), 2013 (10) SCALE 113, 2013 (8) SCC 320, 2014 (1) SCC (LS) 96
Judgement Date:August 08, 2013
Court:Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

P. Sathasivam, C.J.I.

  1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner herein-Kamlesh Verma seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Mayawati v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 106 (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008).

  2. Brief Facts:

    (a) This Court, by order dated 16.07.2003 in LA. No. 387 of 2003 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 706, directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry on the basis of the I.A. filed in the aforesaid writ petition alleging various irregularities committed by the officers/persons concerned in the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and to submit a Preliminary Report. By means of an order dated 21.08.2003 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2003) 8 SCC 711, this Court issued certain directions to the CBI to interrogate and verify the assets of the persons concerned with regard to outflow of Rs. 17 crores which was alleged to have been released without proper sanction for the said Project.

    (b) The CBI-Respondent No. 2 therein submitted a report on 11.09.2003 before this Court which formed the basis of order dated 18.09.2003 titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 696 wherein the CBI was directed to conduct an inquiry with respect to the execution of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project under Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) Area at Agra which culminated into the registration of an FIR being No. 0062003A0018 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the Indian Penal Code) and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the PC Act') against several persons including Ms. Mayawati-Respondent No. 1 herein.

    (c) On the very same date, i.e., on 05.10.2003, Shri K.N. Tewari, Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACP, Lucknow lodged another FIR being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act only against Ms. Mayawati (petitioner therein) alleging that in pursuance of the orders dated 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003 and 18.09.2003 passed by this Court, the CBI conducted an inquiry with regard to the acquisition of disproportionate movable and immovable assets of Ms. Mayawati and her close relatives on the basis of which, the CBI has lodged the said FIR. Pursuant to the same, the CBI conducted raids, search and seizure operations at all the premises of the Petitioner therein and her relatives and seized all the bank accounts.

    (d) Aggrieved by the filing of the FIR being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003, Ms. Mayawati-the Petitioner therein and Respondent No. 1 herein preferred Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135 of 2008 before this Court. In the said petition, one Shri Kamlesh Verma (the Petitioner herein) also moved an application for intervention being LA. No. 8 of 2010.

    (e) This Court, by order dated 06.07.2012, quashed the FIR being No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 holding that the order dated 18.09.2003 does not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against Ms. Mayawati (the Petitioner therein) and the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the same and also allowed the application for intervention.

    (f) Aggrieved by the order of quashing of the FIR being No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003, Shri Kamlesh Verma-the Petitioner herein/the intervenor therein has filed the above review petition.

  3. Heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 1 herein and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General for the CBI.

    Discussion:

  4. The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the review Petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the same in review jurisdiction?

    Review Jurisdiction:

  5. Article 137 of the Constitution of India provides for review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court which reads as under:

    Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

  6. Order XLVII, Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for an application for review which reads as under:

    Any person considering himself aggrieved:--

    1. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

    2. by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

    3. by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.

  7. Further, Part VIII Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 deals with the review and consists of four rules. Rule 1 is important for our purpose which reads as under:

    The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

  8. This Court has repeatedly held in various judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. This Court, in Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674, held as under:

  9. Mr. Daphtary, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a re-hearing. May be, we were not right is refusing special leave in the first round; but, once an order has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the Court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL