Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhtar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2020
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
... 1 ...
HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE
D.B : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. SHARMA AND HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI
SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
M.Cr.C. No.9844/2020
(Akhtar vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dt.31.8.2020
Heard the learned counsel through video conferencing.
Shri P. Saxena, Advocate for the applicant.
Mrs. Archana Kher, Advocate for the State.
PER SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, J :-
1.Some defects have been shown in the cause list regarding non- mentioning of crime number etc. These defects are ignored.
2. As far as I.A.No.3802/2020 which is urgent hearing application, the same stands allowed and disposed of.
3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 362 of Cr.P.C in which it has been submitted that applicant Akhtar was earlier convicted by the 2 nd ASJ, Indore in S.T.No.248/88 vide judgment dated 31 st July, 1995, wherein the appellant was acquitted for committing of the offence under Section 302 of IPC but was convicted under Section 460 of IPC on two counts for causing death of one of the persons and causing grievous injury to another while committing house breaking by night.
4. The trial court imposed separate sentence of life imprisonment for committing the offence under Section 460 of IPC on two counts. This judgment was appealed against and the Division Bench of High Court in Cri.Appeal No.608/1995 vide judgment dt. 25.11.2004 affirmed the conviction and sentence.
5. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, it has been submitted that the applicant is in jail for 15 years 6 months and 90 days and he has not yet been released as both the sentences have not been directed to run concurrently but separate sentence have been imposed. It is submitted that the word Prithak - Prithak (separate - separate) appearing in para 29 and 30 of the impugned ... 2 ...
judgment of the trial court be considered to be a typographical error and the aforesaid words be deleted from the trial court judgment.
6. Per contra, learned public prosecutor for the State submits that due consideration was given to the trial court judgment by the Division Bench and after considering all the aspects has affirmed the conviction and sentence in entirety and there is no room for reviewing the same by another Division Bench.
7. Learned public prosecutor for the State has submitted that the appellant had inflicted knife blows upon two persons and therefore separate sentence for each of such blow has been awarded under Section 460 of IPC for injuries caused to the each of the person and there is neither any illegality nor any typographical mistake in arriving at such conclusion.
8. Considered.
9. The provision of Section 362 of Cr.P.C can be applied only to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. The aspect of clerical or arithmetical error could have been raised by the applicant when the matter was argued before the Division Bench which disposed of the appeal vide judgment dated 25.11.2004. However, no submission appears to have been made before the Division Bench. The review application has to be filed before the same Court which pronounced the judgment and it does not appear that applicant filed any review application before the 2nd ASJ, Indore who had pronounced the judgment dated 31st July, 1995. The applicant had sought the review of the part of the judgment pronounced by the trial court, which is impermissible in law.
10. Hence, no case is made out for any intervention on the part of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, read with 362 of Cr.P.C. Once the Division Bench of this Court had affirmed the trial court's judgment, the only recourse available to the applicant was to approach the Hon'ble Apex court, which step has not been taken by High Court.
... 3 ...
11. The application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C read with Section 362 of Cr.P.C stands dismissed.
(S.C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Digitally signed by
Shailesh Sukhdev
Date: 2020.09.02
14:36:38 +05'30'