Subsequent criminal proceedings do not warrant review absent an error apparent on the record.

R.C. Bakshi, a retired Income Tax Inspector, was the original applicant in OA No.3053/2021.

The Tribunal had passed an order dated 17 March 2025 in which it referred to the criminal proceedings against him, including a disproportionate-assets case registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Union of India and other departmental authorities filed a Review Application challenging, principally, the observation in paragraph 15 of the original order that the conviction and sentence were already in existence before 17 March 2025 and ought to have been disclosed by Bakshi.

The Review Applicants contended that the order on sentence had been passed on 5 February 2024 and that the criminal proceedings, including the confiscation order, were subsequently stayed by the Delhi High Court on 27 November 2024.

The order dated 5 February 2024 imposed concurrent sentences of two years’ rigorous imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of assets in the disproportionate-assets case.

The Delhi High Court, while admitting the criminal appeal, stayed the confiscation order during the pendency of the appeal.

Whether the order on sentence dated 5 February 2024 and the Delhi High Court’s order dated 27 November 2024 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the Tribunal’s order dated 17 March 2025?

Whether the Review Application could be used to re-appreciate matters already considered or to introduce subsequent developments that did not alter the factual or legal basis of the original order?

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited and may be exercised only within recognised legal parameters, including where there is an error apparent on the face of the record; review is not an appeal or a mechanism for re-appreciating matters already considered.

It referred to the principle in Kamal Sengupta that review must ordinarily be confined to the material relevant to the original adjudication.

In relation to the underlying criminal proceedings, the Tribunal considered Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers a criminal court to order disposal or confiscation of property, and Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as recognised in State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The cited authorities establish that, in the absence of a contrary provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act, the criminal court may exercise the confiscatory power under Section 452 CrPC.

The Tribunal held that the criminal proceedings and the conviction-related circumstances had already been noticed in its order dated 17 March 2025, particularly paragraph 2.1, which recorded the disproportionate-assets case against Bakshi.

Although the order on sentence dated 5 February 2024 existed before the original order, its existence did not demonstrate that the Tribunal’s reasoning contained an apparent error warranting review.

The High Court’s order dated 27 November 2024 merely stayed the confiscation proceedings during the pendency of the criminal appeal; it did not change the factual or legal position that had formed the basis of the Tribunal’s original decision.

The proposed review therefore sought, in substance, reconsideration of an aspect already noticed and reliance on a subsequent procedural development, neither of which satisfied the restrictive standard for review.

The Tribunal also recorded that the Review Applicants’ counsel fairly conceded that no error apparent on the face of the record had been demonstrated.

The Review Application was accordingly dismissed.

The delay in filing it had earlier been condoned, and any pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand disposed of; there was no order as to costs.