Latest JudgementBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Laxman vs. State of U.P., 2025

The Court strictly applied procedural discipline and did not allow sympathy or equitable arguments to override the legal bar under Section 362 CrPC.

Allahabad High Court·2 October 2025

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

2 October 2025

Judges

Justice Vivek Kumar Birla & Justice Praveen Kumar Giri

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 362, CrPC Section 403 BNSS Section 482, CrPC Section 528 BNSS

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a 1982 murder. The appellant (Laxman) was convicted and later filed a criminal appeal in 1983 (Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983).

The appeal was admitted, and the appellant was granted bail, but he subsequently absconded and remained untraceable for over 30 years.
Despite non-bailable warrants and multiple opportunities to appear, he did not attend court proceedings.
In March 2025, the High Court passed a final judgment, confirming the conviction, based on re-appreciation of evidence, treating the appellant as an absconder.
The appellant filed a recall application under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC), stating he only learned of the conviction judgment on 30 May 2025, and that his earlier lawyer had died. He claimed he was living in Punjab, not his village.
He surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 2 June 2025, and has been in judicial custody since.

Whether a recall application can be entertained in light of the express bar under Section 362 CrPC (Section 403 BNSS)?
Did the appellant provide sufficient justification for his long absence from the court proceedings?
Was the March 2025 judgment passed ex parte, or was it a decision on merits?
Can inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) be invoked to recall a final judgment?

The High Court dismissed the recall application as not maintainable, citing the bar under Section 362 CrPC / Section 403 BNSS.
It held that: "In the present facts and circumstances of the case, this recall application filed under Section 528 of BNSS along with delay condonation application is not maintainable as it is barred by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. (Section 403 of BNSS)."
The Court clarified that the March 2025 judgment was not an order of dismissal for default but a decision on merits, passed after full consideration of the evidence.
The appellant’s prolonged absconding and failure to inform the Court, even after multiple coercive measures, showed deliberate evasion.
The Court observed "No document was annexed to show that he was residing elsewhere... he gave the wrong impression that his whereabouts were unknown to anybody."
Distinguished from Dhananjay Rai case, where the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, not decided on merits.
Citing Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla, the Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot override the statutory bar under Section 362 CrPC.

The recall application filed under Section 528 BNSS is barred by Section 362 CrPC.
The appellant was given multiple opportunities to appear and defend his case but deliberately evaded proceedings for over three decades.
The March 2025 judgment was a final judgment on merits, and hence cannot be recalled.
The plea of ignorance due to lawyer's death and change of residence lacked evidentiary support.

The ruling upholds the finality of criminal judgments, emphasizing the strict bar on recall or review, except for clerical mistakes.
The Court strictly applied procedural discipline and did not allow sympathy or equitable arguments to override the legal bar under Section 362 CrPC.
This decision also sends a strong message that deliberate evasion of court proceedings for decades cannot be cured by belated appearances or excuses.
The judgment also demonstrates judicial restraint in not expanding the scope of inherent powers, consistent with Supreme Court precedent.