CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Haridwar Pandey vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 5 November 2014 · Citation: (2015) 1 PLJR 901

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 362, 482
CASE NUMBER
Cr. Misc. No. 42158 of 2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 392 words

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Haridwar Pandey and Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the Vigilance. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in the Court. Let the same be kept on record.

2.

The prayer made in paragraph No. 1 to the petition reads as under:--

"That this review petition is being filed under provisions of Section 482 read with 362 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for passing reasoned orders separately in all the nine petitions which have been dismissed in a sentence vide para-36 of order dated 10.4.2013 for modification in Cr. Writ 65/2002 without assigning any reason for dismissal which is against the cardinal principle of justice. The Review Petition is being filed on relying upon the following two rulings:--

(i) 1988 Cr.LJ. 1624.

(ii) 1993 Cr.LJ. 1590.

3.

Altogether nine petitions arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37(4) of 1978 corresponding to Special Case No. 158 of 1983 filed by the petitioner were heard together and dismissed by a common reasoned order passed on 10th April, 2013. The petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid order dated 10th April, 2013.

4.

The present application is thoroughly misconceived. It is well settled that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the Court from altering or reviewing any judgment or final order after it has been signed except for the purpose of clerical or arithmetical error. As soon as judgment or final order disposing of a case is signed, the Court becomes functus officio and thereafter it cannot reconsider or modify final order or judgment, The prohibition is absolute. This Court has no inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to override bar of review under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reference in this regard may be made to the binding precedents of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal and Another, ; Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Others, ; State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair, ; Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others, ; State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others etc., ; Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, ; and Nazma Vs. Javed @ Anjum, . Having regard to the well settled law, the present application filed for review of the final order is dismissed.