Delhi High Court
Sudhir Kumar vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) [Along With ... on 3 October, 2007
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
ORDER Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Crl. M.A. No. 7977/2007 and Crl. M.A. No. 7979/2007
1. By this order I shall dispose of these two applications. In the above two applications, the plea raised by the appellants for quashing the order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case on 19th February, 2007/2nd June, 2007.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that the conviction in this case was announced by the learned trial court on 12th February, 2007 and order on sentenced was announced by the trial court on 19th February, 2007. By this order on sentence, one of the appellants was sentence to imprisonment of 7 years under Section 467/471 read with Section 120B of IPC and fine of Rs.25,000/-. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years with respect to offence under Section 472 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. However, the learned trial court on 2nd June, 2007 passed another order on sentence whereby the appellant was sentenced to 10 years RI under Section 120B for recovery of Rs. 46 lacs worth forged Kisan Vikas Patras. He submitted that the trial court had become functus officio after announcement of judgment and sentenced on 19th February, 2007 and could not change the judgment/order and order dated 2nd June, 2007 of the learned trial court was illegal and deserved to be quashed. The trial court had no power to review its own judgment.
3. I have perused the record and the initial order on sentence and corrected order on sentence passed by the learned trial court on 2.6.2007 and the order passed by the trial court on 2nd June, 2007, dismissing the objections of appellant that no such corrections could be made in the order dated 19th February, 2007 and the set of documents relied upon by the trial court at the time of signing the corrected order.
4. It is observed by the trial court that on presentation of bail bonds of the appellant Sudhir Kumar, it transpired that there was a printing error in the order dated 19th February, 2007 ( Order on Sentence) on page No. 32 of the judgment. On this page, top 5 lines of page 31 were repeated and last five lines of the order on sentence escaped printing. The jail warrant of the appellant showed that the sentence awarded to the appellant was 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, whereas the order dated 19th February, 2007 did not reflected this punishment. The learned trial court called a report from the computer branch regarding the order on sentence uploaded on the server by the stenographer on 19.2.2007. ( It be noted that all judgments and orders on sentence are uploaded on the server and placed on the website of the District Courts for public consumption). The report showed that the order on sentence and order sheet of the case were uploaded on the server at 4 pm on 19th February, 2007. The print out of the order on sentence and order sheet of 19th February, 2007 were taken from the server by the computer branch and it showed that it had complete version of page 32, which included the part of sentence of 10 years' RI and fine. The copy of the order sheet dated 19th February, 2007 was also called from computer branch which also showed that sentence of 10 years RI with fine in respect of appellants Sudhir Kumar and Anupam Sharma, was there in the order. The trial court then summoned the jail warrants of both the appellants as well as conviction slip maintained by the prosecution branch and found that in the jail warrants as well as in conviction slip, the sentence of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC along with fine was there. He called the report from the stenographer. The stenographer's report also showed the same thing.
5. After looking into all materials, the trial court found that there was a printing error in the order on sentence which remained unnoticed by him at the time of signing the same and he, therefore, corrected this printing error vide its order dated 2nd June, 2007 and signed the corrected order on sentence on that day after rectifying this printing error that occurred in the order on sentence qua appellants Sudhir Kumar and Anupam Sharma.
6. It is argued by counsel for the appellants that the error was not a clerical or arithmetic error and rectified order in fact enhanced the sentence of the appellants and amounted to review of the order on sentence by the trial court which was not permissible. He stated that scope of Section 362 Cr.P.C, which permitted corrections of clerical and arithmetic error, is very limited. Counsel for the appellants relied upon Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr.; 2000(4) RCR (Crl.) SC 650 Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa; 1994 Crl. L.J. (6) SC 1633 Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh; and 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) Delhi 298 Mohd. Hashim Masood v. State.
7. The import of all these judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant is that no review of the judgment is permissible under law by the Court that passed the judgment. There was no provision in the Cr.P.C to review the judgment. Even the High Court cannot review its judgment in the criminal cases despite having the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order disposing of the case is signed. However, the powers to make corrections, clerical or arithmetical error under Section 362 Cr.P.C is not disputed.
8. The only question which arises is whether the correction in the order on sentence passed by the trial court amounted to review of its own order dated 19th February, 2007 or was merely a correction of clerical error. Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the correctness or authenticity of any of the documents relied upon by the trial court while ordering corrections in the order on sentence. It is not disputed that in the jail warrants signed by the trial court, while finally convicting and sentencing the appellants, different sentences were mentioned and one of the sentences mentioned was 10 years RI under Section 120B of IPC with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine SI for one year. If this sentence had not been awarded on 19th February, 2007, this sentence would not have been mentioned in the warrants of conviction of the appellants sent to jail. The very fact that this sentence was mentioned in the warrants shows that this sentence was awarded to the appellants, but due to printing mistake i.e. a clerical mistake at the time of taking print from the computer this paragraph got omitted and one paragraph got duplicated. The other document which fortifies this fact is the jail warrant of the second appellant which also mentions the same sentence and fine. The conviction slips maintained by the prosecution in respect of both the appellants show that, the sentence awarded was 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, SI for one year in respect of this offence. The server printout of the order on sentence, the order sheet of that day, jail warrants and conviction slip all reflect that the order on sentence, as announced by the trial court in the open court included the sentence of 10 years for offences under Section 120B for recovery of Rs. 46 lacs worth forged Kisan Vikas Patras along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- but this paragraph got omitted when computer printout was taken.
9. We are now living in an era of information technology where computers are used in the courts and efforts are being made for complete computerization of the courts. Along with modernization of the courts, pangs of modernization are going be there and such errors are bound to be there. The error in taking printout from the computer where certain sentences are reprinted and certain sentences are omitted is normal. In the present case, printing error went unnoticed at the time of signing and subsequently this error was corrected. Such a correction of error does not amount to review. Section 362 Cr.P.C is meant squarely for such errors which may creep into the orders. One can imagine a reverse scenario where some persons have been acquitted and some persons have been convicted in a case and due to error in printing, a paragraph about the persons who have been acquitted gets omitted and the judgment is signed. If this omission in the printout is brought to the notice of the court by the accused, the court cannot say that it cannot rectify the mistake since it had signed the judgment. Correction of an error which occurred due to incomplete printout does not amount to review. Here, in this case, the entire record shows that the learned trial court had not reviewed the order. This error in print out came to the notice of the trial court at the time when bail was granted to the accused by the High Court and he was asked to deposit the fine. When he deposited the fine of Rs. 30,000/- and the record showed that fine imposed was Rs. 55,000/-, the trial court called the record and found that there was a printing error in the order on sentence which was on record while the fine imposed as per the fine register and as per the sentence register maintained in the court was Rs. 55,000/-. The fine showed in the order of court file was Rs. 30,000/- and on discovering this printing error, the trial court corrected the error.
10. I find no infirmity in the order of the learned trial court dated 2nd June, 2007, whereby the order was corrected. This order cannot be quashed as prayed for by the appellant. The application is hereby dismissed being devoid on merits.
Crl. M.B. No. 662/20071. This application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C has been preferred by the appellant Anupam Sharma for grant of bail and for suspension of sentence.
2. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 55,000/- in terms of the order on sentence. The appellant has undergone appropriately 5 years and five months of sentence including remission period and under trial period. There is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in the near future.
3. Keeping in view all facts and circumstances, pending disposal of the appeal, the sentence of appellant Anupam Sharma is suspended and he is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court concerned and on his depositing the entire fine of Rs. 55,000/- and subject to the appellant showing receipt of payment of fine to the Jail Superintendent at the time of his release.
4. The application stands disposed of in above terms.