Mohd. Yameen and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Chandra, J.—This Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 26950 of 2010 has been moved with a prayer that the order dated 23.3.09 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 33249/09, Mohd. Yameen and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. may be recalled.

A perusal of the record shows that after the filing of the charge-sheet in Crime No. 390/08 under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B IPC, PS Civil Lines, District Meerut in the court of Addl. CJM 1st, Meerut, the applicants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 33249/09, u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash; the said charge-sheet. That petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 23.3.09.

Now the counsel for the applicants by way of this correction application No. 26950/10 wants that the said order may be recalled.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA. In respect of the said controversy, a reference be made to Section 362 of Cr.P.C. which runs as under:

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 clerical or arithmetical error.

A perusal of the said section makes it clear that once the judgment or final order disposing of a case has been signed by a court, it will not be altered or reviewed except for correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. The Hon''bte Apex Court in Smt. Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal and Another, has observed that a clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an (sic) slip or omission of the court. It represents that which the court never intend to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. In view of the above observations, it is clear that u/s 482 Cr.P.C. only clerical or arithmetical errors can be corrected.

In another judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee, AIR 1990 SC 1605 it has been laid down as under:

Section 362 of the Code expressly provides that 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 save as otherwise provided by the Court. Section 482 enables the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers, however, as much are controlled by principle and precedent as are its expressed powers by statute. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a gobye to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction.

In another judgment of the Apex Court, State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair, the three Judges of Hon''ble Supreme Court have held as under-

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorize the High Court to review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction. Section 362 of the Code prohibits the Court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing a case from altering or reviewing the said judgment or order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is complete and no criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. By the first order dated 31.5.2000, the High Court rejected the prayer of the respondents for quashing the criminal proceeding. This order attained its finality. By the impugned order, the High Court reversed its earlier order and quashed the criminal proceedings for want of proper sanction. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that by the impugned order, the High Court only corrected any clerical or arithmetical error. In fact the impugned order is an order of review, as the earlier order was reversed, which could not have been done as there is no such provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but there is an interdict against it.

In another judgment Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa AIR 2001 SC 43, the Supreme Court has again laid down as under.-

Section 362 of the Code mandates that 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. The Section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provisions becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. The reliance of the respondents on Talab Haji Hussain Vs. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Another, is misconceived. Even in that case it was pointed that inherent powers conferred on High Courts u/s 561A (Section 482 of the new Court) has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is not disputed that the petition filed u/s 482 of Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 07.01.1999. The new Section 362 of Code which was drafted keeping in view the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment.

The other judgments of Hon''ble the Apex Court on the same controversy are the following:

Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar (2005)12 SCC 361.

Sunita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and Others,

State rep. by D.S.P., S.B.C.I.D., Chennai Vs. K.V. Rajendran and Others,

In view of the above pronouncements, the present application is not maintainable.

The application is therefore, dismissed.