Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MOHAMMED ZAKIR versus SHABANA & ORS.

Decided
23 July 2018
Judges listed
KURIAN JOSEPH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2018] 7 S.C.R. 1128 · 2018 INSC 637
Also cited as
  • (2018) 15 SCC 316 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 1129, margin A

2

We have heard the petitioner, who is appearing in person, Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel, who was appointed as an amicus in this matter.

p. 1129, margin A

3

The appellant is aggrieved since the High Court passed an order under Section 362 Cr.P.C. dated 28.04.2017 recalling its own order dated 18.04.2017. The order dated 28.04.2017 reads as under:- “Notwithstanding section 362 of Cr.P.C. the order rendered by this Court earlier on 18.04.2017 is found to be patently erroneous and therefore the order is withdrawn. The petition is restored to file and the registry is directed not to webhost the order passed earlier and to take note of the fact that the order is withdrawn.”

p. 1129, margin B

4

The High Court should not have exercised the power under Section 362 Cr.P.C. for a correction on merits. However patently erroneous the earlier order be, it can only be corrected in the process known to law and not under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The whole purpose of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is only to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. What the High Court sought to do in the impugned order is not to correct a clerical or arithmetical error; it sought to re-hear the matter on merits, since, according to the learned Judge, the earlier order was patently erroneous. That is impermissible under law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2017.

p. 1129, margin C

5

Now that the parties have appeared before us, we have ascertained that the appellant approached the High Court, aggrieved by the notice issued by the Sessions Court on 25.01.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.95/2017. Since the said appeal is pending before Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, we do not propose to deal with the matter on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the High Court and dispose of this appeal with a direction to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengalure to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No.95/2017 expeditiously.

p. 1129, margin E

6

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

p. 1129, margin G