Sathiah vs The Sub Inspector of Police Karaikudi South

Maheswaran, J.—This is a petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to fix an early date for the hearing of Crl. Revision Case No. 581 of 1980 (on the file of this Court).

Criminal Revision Case No. 581 of 1980 came up for hearing on 3rd November, 1982. The accused in that case was charged for an offence u/s 304-A, I.P.C., and was convicted by the trial Magistrate who sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in appeal, confirmed the conviction and the sentence and dismissed the appeal. The revision Petitioner challenged that conviction and sentence in the said revision. On 3rd November, 1982 the counsel who has now filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not present in Court. There was also no representation on her behalf. As there was no representation the case was passed over and other cases were taken up. (The Bench Clerk of this Court sent the peons of this Court in search of the counsel, but they returned saying that she could not be found anywhere in the High Court premises.) Again, after finishing the next case, the matter was taken up and again the counsel was not to be seen. Again the case was passed over. The revision petition was again called for a third time. Even then the counsel was not present and no one on her behalf prayed for adjournment. The Public Prosecutor was then heard, the judgments of the Courts below and the records in the case wire perused and the revision was disposed of on merits confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the Courts below.

The counsel for the Petitioner presented this petition on 16th November, 1982. She has given notice to the Public Prosecutor. The matter was heard on 18th November, 1982 on the question of maintainability of the petition.

The contention of the Petitioner''s counsel is that she was unable to be present in Court on 3rd November, 1982 , when the case was called for final hearing, ''on account of circumstances beyond her control'', but she came at 3:30 P.M. on 3rd November, 1982 and represented to Court to recall the order of dismissal and render justice, that "the Judge in all fairness to the counsel and the revision petition should have in law posted the case for dismissal on 4th November, 1982" (see paragraph 2 of the petition), and that the order passed by the Court without giving a reasonable opportunity to the counsel for the Petitioner is in law a nullity.

This application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor who asserted that the application was beyond the scope of Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that once the judgment is signed, the Court is precluded from re hearing the case or reviewing its own judgment.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, run thus:

Save as otherwise provided by this Code or 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.

This Section corresponds to Section 369 of the 1898 Code (Old Code). Section 369 of the old Code provides 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 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.

A reading of the new Section, namely, Section 362, shows that a judgment which has been signed can be altered or reviewed only for correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. In Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyate Lai, 1981 L.W. Crl. 295 the Supreme Court has described clerical or arithmetical error as "an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the Court and it represents that which the Court never intended to say and that it is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation." The Supreme Court further pointed out that an arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. No such error has been pointed out in the present petition and therefore the judgment pronounced on 3rd November, 1982 in open Court cannot be altered, reviewed or substituted.

We have now to consider the contention of the Public Prosecutor that the application for fixing an early date for hearing Criminal revision case No. 581 of 1980 which has been disposed of, is beyond the'' scope of Section 482,N Code of Criminal Procedure What the Petitioner really asks for in this petition is a re-hearing of the case or a review of the judgment, for, there is no point in asking to fix an early date for hearing a case which has already been disposed of. In State of Orissa v. R.C. Agarwala the Supreme Court pointed out that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot relate to any of the matters specifically dealt with by the Code and the inherent powers cannot be invoked to exercise powers which would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code.

It therefore follows that Section 482 , Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be invoked to enable this Court to re-hear or review its own order, which is prohibited by Section 362. The principle of finality of judgment or order passed in appeal would equally apply to the judgment or order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In Paramasivam v. State, this Court took the view that the inherent powers of the Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be invoked to review an order passed dismissing a revision for default in appearance of the Petitioner. The petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is therefore, not maintainable and is dismissed.