Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapoor Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988CRILJ636
JUDGMENT D.S. Tewatia, J.
1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., 1973 (for short 'the 1973 Code') had been moved by Kapoor Singh, petitioner, seeking the modification and review of the judgment of this Court dt. 12th Sept., 1978, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1358 of 1975, sustaining the judgment of the trial Court dt. 11h Aug., 1975, whereby the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced as under:
(i) Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two years, under Section 302/149, I.P.C.
(ii) R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months, under Section 307/149, I.P.C. for murderous assault on Charanjit Kaur.
(iii) R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months under Section 307/149, I.P.C., for murderous assault on Satnam Singh.
(iv) R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months under Section 307/149, I. P. C. for murder ousassault on Gian Singh.
(v) R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months under Section 364, I.P.C.
(vi) R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 250/-, default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months, under Section 201, I.P.C.
(vii) R.I. for two years under Section 148, I.P.C. Only the sentences under Section 307/149, I.P.C. would run concurrently when these would start.
2. The trial Court had ordered the undergoing of the sentence of imprisonment consecutively excepting regarding the sentences imposed under Section 307 read with Section 149, Penal Code, regarding the murderous assault on Smt. Charanjit Kaur and on similar accounts regarding murderous assaults on Satnam Singh and Gian Singh. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to order that all sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently and modify the judgment of this Court! accordingly.
3. In the body of the petition, reference is made to the following judgments of this Court in which this Court is said to have modified the earlier judgments and had made the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently:
(1) Criminal Misc. No. 6088-M of 1985, decided on 11th Aug., 1985.
(2) Criminal Misc. No. 1196 of 1985, decided on 17th April, 1985.
(3) D. B. decision in Criminal Misc. No. 2158 of 1985, decided on 17th May, 1985. (Reported in (1987) 2 Rec Cri R 240 (Punj & Har).) (4) Criminal Misc. No. 3927 of 1986, decided on 1st Aug., 1986.
4. It is not necessary to refer to these decisions in any detail suffice to mention that i in none of these judgments notice is taken of the provision of Section 362 of the 1973 Code, nor of the binding decisions of the Supreme Court reported as State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala ; Naresh v. State of U.P. 1981 Chand LR (Cri) 637 : 1981 Cri LJ 1044(SC)and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab 1982 Chand LR(Cri) 363 : 1982 Cri LJ 1215.
5. Provision of Section 362 of 1973 Code is in the following terms:
Section 362. Court not to alter judgment : Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposed of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
6. Their Lordships in Ram Chander's case 1979 Cri LJ 33 (SC) (supra) repelled the contention advanced before them that the High Court was competent in exercise of inherent jurisdiction conferred by Section 561-A, Criminal P.C., 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Code') to review its order (the corresponding provision in the 1973, Code being Section 482) by observing that inherent powers conferred by the said provision cannot be invoked to do what is prohibited by specific provisions of the 1973 Code itself. Their Lordships, therefore, held that inherent powers under S 561-A of the old Code cannot be invoked for enabling the Court to review its own order, which is specifically prohibited by Section 369 of the old Code (the corresponding provision in the 1973 Code being Section 362),
7. In Naresh's case 1981 Cri LJ 1044 (SC) (supra) their Lordships took the view that under Section 362 of the Code, the High Court was competent to correct only the clerical mistake in the judgment and had no power to review the judgment.
8. Sandhawalia, C.J. in Ajit Singh's case 1982 Cri LJ 1215 (FB) (supra) who delivered the opinion for the Full Bench independently took the same view and held that it is more than manifest that both with regard to the appellate and the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, there is no power as to review or revise its earlier judgment, except to correct clerical error.
9. In our view, making the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently instead of consecutively would involve the review of the judgment and by no stretch of imagination can this be considered to be a correction of a clerical error. The Court has to take a conscious decision after due application of mind as to whether the sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively. It does so in the light of all the facts and circumstances of a case including the gravity of the offence or otherwise.
10. For the reasons, aforementioned, we find no merit in this application and dismiss the same.