Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. There is a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh v. State of U.P. that once an order or judgment has been signed the Court cannot alter it except for clerical error, etc., and any power of review does not exist. I may quote the relevant observations made in that case (para 2):

The High Court was wholly wrong in altering the judgment pronounced by them disposing of the criminal appeals, That was clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 362, Cr.P.C.
Section 362, Cr.P.C., runs as follows:
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 is signed its judgment of final order disposing of a case shall alter, or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

4. It is urged that this section does not apply to judgment and orders of the High Court. For that the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh 1981 CriLJ 1044 (supra) which I have quoted is a complete answer. The Supreme Court has in that case observed that the alteration of the judgment by the High Court was clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 362, Cr.P.C. This in itself implies that in view of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid latest pronouncement Section 362 of the present Cr.P.C. applies to all Courts including High Court. The language of the section using the expression 'the Court' also indicates that. It was argued that the observations were made in the content that the High Court stated that there was a clerical mistake in the operative part of the judgment while in view of the Supreme Court this observation was incorrect. The crux of the matter is not that but the crux is whether Section 362 of the new Cr.P.C. applies to High Court's orders and judgment also or not and so far as that aspect is concerned the aforesaid pronouncement is expressly an authority that this provision is attracted in case of orders and the judgments of the High Court as well as otherwise why should the Supreme Court expressly observe that the High Courts orders altering the judgment contravenes the provision of Section 362, Cr.P.C.

5. It was next urged that Section 362, Cr.P.C., may apply only partly and not in an unqualified manner. One cannot add to the language of the section. It does not say that qua High Court's orders and judgment the bar applies only partly and not wholly. It was urged that the inherent powers are derived from the rights conferred under the Constitution itself and so such powers would not be governed by any procedural law. It would not admit of any doubt that inherent powers of the Court exist even independently of Section 482, Cr.P.C. in view of the Constitution itself but the question is whether a judgment or final order passed even in that proceeding can be reviewed and so far as that aspect is concerned, the bar under Section 362, Cr.P.C., would apply to such judgment and orders also because a judgment in proceeding under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the Court cannot import any exceptions in that section which are not there. It was further urged that a judgment which does not assign reasons will be a nullity. Sri Tejpal urged that while he may concede that in case of summary rejection at the stage of admission the Court may not assign reasons, in hearing cases it has to do so. Sri Devendra Swarup on the other hand urged that the Court can dismiss the case assigning reasons but once reasons are assigned and dismissal is made behind the back of the party it will be a denial of justice and the counsel must necessarily be heard. Reliance has been placed upon a number of pronouncements which I may consider one by one. Reliance was placed upon the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chander . This ruling in no way helps the present applicants. It was observed that corresponding Section 369 as enacted in 1898, while laying down the bar to alter or review the judgments made exception in the case of High Court employing the language 'no court, other than a High Court. The observations made in this case in para 8 is that despite the express exclusion of the High Courts from the operation of this provision, it was held that High Court had no implied powers to alter or review their own judgments whether under Section 369 or Section 439 of the then Cr.P.C. or otherwise. Section was redrafted because as stated in the very ruling there were certain provisions in the Code and Clause 26 of the Letters Patent of the High Courts empowering High Courts to revise their judgments. The redrafted section reads as follows:

Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of a High Court, by the Letters Patent, or other instrument constituting such High Court, no Court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error.
It would be found from redrafted section that the only saving is as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or in the case of the High Court by the Letters Patent or other instrument. This itself again is made clear that there should be some power to revise or review in the judgment and order under the provisions of the Code or otherwise provided for and only then alteration could be made and not otherwise. While dealing with the present section in para 11 it was observed that an alteration or review by High Court would be permissible as in the case of other Courts, where provision therefor is made in this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Thus there must be some provision under which a review or alteration has been made permissible and in absence of that according to this authority also no review or alteration is permissible. The next case relied upon is of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra . What has been held in that case is that in certain situations Section 397 of the Criminal P.C. relating to revision may not stand as a bar to jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., which is wider. I fail to appreciate how this ruling can help in the matter of review or alteration of judgment when Section 362, Cr.P.C., contains a complete bar except where otherwise it is permissible under any provision and when that is the view taken in the case of Naresh 1981 CriLJ 1044 (supra) as well as in the case of State of Orissa 1979 CriLJ 33 (supra), which the applicant's counsel himself cited.