Bhagwat Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh

R.S. Sharma, J.—Heard. This is an application filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for extension of time to deposit the fine amount enhanced by this Court vide judgment dated 14-7-2012 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2004.

Petitioner-Bhagwat Sahu was convicted under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B, IPC and sentenced by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur vide judgment dated 26-3-2004 in Special Case No. 98/2003, in the following manner:--

Being aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment dated 26-3-2004, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal bearing No. 319/2004 before this Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court was partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B, IPC was upheld and he was sentenced for the period already undergone by him, however, the sentence of fine imposed by the Trial Court was enhanced by this Court with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 month in case the amount of fine is not deposited within 2 months.

Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner is a very poor person and is not good financially, therefore, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of fine in time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requested to grant some more time to deposit the amount of fine.

Per contra, Shri R.R. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent, argued that this Court has already taken a lenient view and after passing the judgment, this Court has no power to review or alter its earlier judgment except to correct the clerical or arithmetical errors.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs thus:--

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 disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

In Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:--

This Court in a recent judgment in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others etc., , dealt with the issue considering a very large number of earlier judgments of this Court including Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, , and came to the conclusion:--

Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the Court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgments as the Judge becomes functus officio. Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law''.

In State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Agarwala and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:--

Once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction.

Sections 369 and 424 do not restrict the prohibition u/s 369 to the Trial Court alone. The purpose of Section 424 is to prescribe mode of delivering of judgment, the language and the contents of the judgment, while Section 369 is general in its application and prohibits all Courts from altering or reviewing its judgment when once it has signed it.

In Ajit Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, (Full Bench), the High Court of Punjab & Haryana held thus:--

Repelled on this basic legal stand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had then faintly attempted to contend that the relief of the extension of time for the deposit of fine at least would not amount to a review or alteration of the original judgment. In this context, it deserves to be recalled that the appellate order whilst granting conditional relief had clearly directed that in the event of non-compliance of this condition the appellants would surrender and undergo the remaining portions of their substantive sentences. On the failure to comply with the condition of the payment of fine within four months the status quo ante would thus, be restored and the substantive sentences of imprisonment would be resuscitated. Consequently, the allowance of the application would involve a clear review of the earlier judgment on the point of sentence and setting aside the same, the payment of fine would have to be substituted...

After going through the judgment passed by this Court in the above said criminal appeal, it is gathered that this Court categorically came to hold that the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B, IPC. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount was enhanced. The petitioner was granted 2 months time for depositing the fine amount, therefore, it appears that there is no clerical or arithmetical error in the judgment passed by this Court and once this Court has passed the judgment on its own merit, this Court became functus officio. Hence, the time for depositing the fine amount granted by this Court to the petitioner cannot be extended by this Court as it would amount to review or alteration of the judgment. Therefore, Cri. M.P. No. 756/2012. u/s 482 of the Cr. PC filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. For the foregoing reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.