S.362 CrPC | No Court Can Alter Judgement After It Has Attained Finality, Except To Correct Clerical Error: Calcutta High Court Reiterates

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a criminal application for modification of Judgement, and held that no judgement or final order pronounced by a Court can be altered or reviewed, once it has been signed, except to correct a clerical or arithmetic error.

Relying on Section 362 of CrPC, a single-judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held:

The above provision 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 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.

The Court was hearing submissions pertaining to a modification application, concerning a criminal review that had been disposed of by setting aside an order of conviction passed by the Trial judge under Section 307, 326 and 34 of the IPC, directing 7 years of imprisonment.

In setting aside the order, the Court had reframed the charges under Section 324 and 34 of IPC, and imposed the payment of fine of Rs 10,000, in default of which the accused would be imprisoned for 6 months.

It was argued by the applicant’s counsel, that they were teachers by profession and that such a consideration was made by the Court when it had passed its earlier orders, setting aside the order passed by the Trial judge.

The counsel for the applicant requested the Court to take a lenient view of the applicants due to their status as school teachers, like it had earlier, and submitted that the applicant was facing difficulties in being hired to other teaching jobs or in reapplying to his previous job, due to the orders of conviction.

In invoking the Probation of Offenders Act and praying for rehabilitation, the applicants sought modification to the earlier order insofar as to invoke directions upon the school authorities to ensure that the applicant is reinstated in his previous role and that the order of conviction of the applicant would not cause any detriment to his chances of being employed as a teacher.

The Court noted:

“the applicant duly deposited the fine amount before the Learned Court below. [Thereafter], the applicant approached the school authorities of Dhakia Anchalik Vidyaniketan at Ranjitpur for joining his service. However, upon production of documents, the school authorities rejected the prayer of the applicant for joining his service. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant application praying direction upon the school authorities to allow the applicant to join and continue his service... The applicant prays for direction upon the school authorities that the order of affirmation of conviction would not stand in the way of the applicant joining his service.”

While disallowing the prayer for modification, Justice Chaudhuri held that Section 362 of the CrPC bars any Court from altering a judgement or final order under Section 482 CrPC, once it has attained finality due to having been pronounced or signed.

Justice Chaudhuri noted that the only exception to such a stringent rule, is made in case of clerical errors. In rejecting the application, he concluded:

“The singular exception to the said statutory bar is 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 may be relied on in support of the observation made hereinabove. 9. In view of the above discussion I do not have any power or authority to alter the order of sentence passed in CRA 722 of 2019. The application is accordingly rejected.”

Case: Dipak Kumar Mondal & Ors. v The State of West Bengal

Coram: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 177

Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswajit Manna, Adv.

For the State: Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Adv.,