The recent decision of the Calcutta High Court involved the dismissal of a criminal application seeking modification of a judgment.
The court emphasized that once a judgment or final order has been signed by the court, it cannot be altered or reviewed, except in cases of correcting clerical or arithmetic errors.
Brief Facts:
The Court was considering arguments regarding a modification application related to a criminal review case. The review case involved the overturning of a conviction order passed by the Trial judge under Sections 307, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which resulted in a sentence of 7 years of imprisonment.
Upon setting aside the conviction order, the Court redefined the charges to be under Sections 324 and 34 of the IPC. Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of Rs 10,000, with a provision that if the accused failed to pay the fine, they would be imprisoned for a period of 6 months.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicants were professional teachers and the Court had taken this into consideration when setting aside the Trial judge's order in previous rulings.
The counsel representing the applicant requested the Court to show leniency towards the applicants based on their occupation as school teachers, as it had done before. They further stated that the applicant was encountering challenges in securing new teaching positions or reapplying to their previous job due to the existing conviction orders.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that section 362 of CrPC is abundantly clear that a clerical or arithmetical error can only be corrected after pronouncing of a judgment. Once judgment is pronounced, even the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of permission to compound the offence. In view of the clear provision of Section 362, the High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to alter the earlier judgment after it has been signed. No criminal court can review its own judgment after it is signed. It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a Court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. However, the court noted the singular exception to the said statutory bar is the correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the Court. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 was relied on in support of the observation made.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta HC rejected the order being devoid of any power to rectify it.
Case Title: Dipak Kumar Mondal & Ors. v The State of West Bengal
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Case no: CRA 722 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Milon Mukherjee
Advocate for the Respondent: - Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
