Jagroop Singh vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 15058 P&H

                                                                           Neutral Citation No:=




254          IOIN-CRM-M-33622-2023 in CRM-M-33622-2023

             Jagroop Singh 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-Jagroop Singh were that the contractors including Jagroop Singh- pe oner in connivance with the officials gave the numbers of scooter/motorcycles etc. The official- respondents were duty bound to verify these vehicles while passing the contractor in the technical bid. Thus, this was one of the manipula on done by the officials to adjust/make successful bids of the contractors of their own choice a2er taking bribe. On the other hand, when the contractor including Jagroop Singh-pe oner got successful in ge=ng the tender of Samrala Cluster of the year 2020-2021 and then he got the contract in his favour. List of vehicles submi?ed by the pe oner with tender documents have been verified and it is found that 11 vehicles were non carrier vehicles. The copy of the list of vehicles while men oning the wrong entry (verified by RTO) submi?ed during the tender process by pe oner Jagroop Singh."

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

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=

"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 ma?er i.e. CRM-M-29346-2023 "tled as Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, pronounced on 01.09.2023, which is also being rec fied. This order shall be treated as a part of order dated 01.09.2023.

Since the pe oner is un-represented and is unaware of this corrigendum, as such, Registry to convey this order to the counsel.

IOIN stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anoop Chitkara) Judge 04.09.2023 anju rani

Neutral Citation No:=

2 of 2