Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Thakur @ Chhotu @ Rajendra Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 August, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:43928-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2575 of 2025
1 - Rajesh Thakur @ Chhotu @ Rajendra Thakur S/o Shambhu Thakur Aged
About 21 Years R/o Attharahgudi, Police Station Pithora, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate
For State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
29.08.2025
Per Rajani Dubey J.
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking correction of an alleged clerical error in the
judgment dated 06.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 2009/2019, whereby the judgment was reserved on
Digitally
signed
by
31.07.2025 and pronounced on 06.08.2025.
SHAYNA
KADRI
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the misrecording
of the name of counsel in the judgment constitutes a clerical
error, rectifiable under Section 403 of BNSS, 2023, which
empowers the Court to correct such errors at any time. Advocate
Akshat Tiwary has never appeared in the case on any prior date,
nor did he argue the matter, which confirms that his inclusion in
the judgment is erroneous. The correction sought does not affect
the merits of the case or the substance of the judgment but
merely seeks to accurately reflect the name of the arguing
counsel.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also
perused the documents available on record.
4. Upon consideration of the submissions and the material placed
on record, this Court observes that the judgment dated
06.08.2025 in CRA No. 2009/2019 is a final judicial
pronouncement, which was passed after due adjudication of the
matter on merits. The request now made pertains to the
substitution of the name of the arguing counsel as recorded in
the opening paragraph of the judgment.
5. It is trite law that once a judgment has been signed and
pronounced by the Court, any modification thereto must be made
with utmost caution and only in cases where the error is purely
clerical or arithmetical, not involving re-appreciation of facts or
subjective determination. The petitioner has not produced any
contemporaneous record or acknowledgment from the Court
registry or the presiding Bench conclusively showing that the
name of Advocate Palaash Jha was duly noted for purposes of
final record. Mere submission of a written synopsis, even if
signed, does not by itself establish a judicial error unless the
Court record reflects such submission was officially taken on file
or read into record. Moreover, the present petition is premised
on conflicting claims of two advocates, and in the absence of a
clear record or judicial acknowledgment during proceedings, the
same cannot be entertained under the limited scope of Section
403 BNSS.
6. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find sufficient
ground to hold that the inclusion of the name "Akshat Tiwari,
Advocate" in the judgment dated 06.08.2025 amounts to a
clerical or typographical error liable to be corrected under Section
403 of BNSS, 2023.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Shayna Judge Judge
