Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 15056 P&H

                                                                           Neutral Citation No:=




253          IOIN-CRM-M-29346-2023 in CRM-M-29346-2023

             Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab

Present:     None for the pe    oner.

             Mr. Ferry Sofat, Addl. AG, Punjab.

                    ****

CORRIGENDUM In the present case, this Court had pronounced the order on 01.09.2023 i.e. Friday. Today i.e. Monday, while going through the downloaded copy of the order, it is realized that in paragraph 5, the facts presented, were not the ones which were dictated. This error has occured due to the document not being saved a2er correc on or probably these facts were kept in the clip board and erroneously got pasted. For this very reason, in the order a number of para was also not put which should have been No.6.

Given above, the para which is un-numbered, be read as para 5(a) and the same is subs tuted with the following:-

"5(a) The allega ons against the pe oner-Surinder Kumar were that he connived with other accused and voilated custom milling policy 2021-22 of the government by storing wheat and paddy in their own firms or in the firms of their rela ves which were situated far away from grain markets. Further allega ons were that the pe oner would purchase wheat and paddy from the states outside the Punjab at lower rates and then would sell in the state of Punjab as per the prevailing MSP. As per prosecu on using the influence of the then Minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu and in criminal offence with Surinder Kumar Berry, the then Manager PUNGRAIN, the pe oner did all this mischief. Detailed reply has been filed by the State by men oning the government policy and voila on therein. State's second conten on is that this is the second bail pe on and all these were well within the knowledge of the Court while dismissing the first bail pe on on merits and there is no legal ground to re-consider these points or review the order in second bail pe on."

The aforesaid order is only because of the error which resulted because of the 'paste' command from clip board of the computer, as such it is clerical in nature and can certainly be corrected by this Court at this stage. Reference be also made to the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=

Supreme Court of India, in which the clerical errors were permiCed to be rec fied. The said judgments are as follows:-

"in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, 2001(1) SCC 169, held that Sec"on 362 of the Criminal Procedure 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 an arithemitcal error and that this sec"on is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a ma,er is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disen"tled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by the court of competent jurisdic"on.

in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012)10 SCC 303, Supreme Court holds that sec"on 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 arithme"cal error save as otherwise provided by the Code. Sec"on 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 jus"ce. The inherent powers, however, as much are controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statute. If a ma,er is covered by an express le,er of law, the court cannot give a go-by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdic"on."

A similar mistake has also occured in another iden cal maCer i.e. CRM-M-33622-2023 "tled as Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab, pronounced on 01.09.2023, which is also being rec fied. This order shall be treated as a part of orders dated 01.09.2023.

Since the pe oner as well as complainant are un-represented and are unaware of this corrigendum, as such, Registry to convey this order to the counsels.

IOIN stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anoop Chitkara) Judge 04.09.2023 anju rani

Neutral Citation No:=

2 of 2