Convict's Sentence Enhanced My Modifying Trial Court Judgment Under Reader's Signature: Punjab & Haryana HC Asks Appellate Court To Conduct Inquiry

The bench comprising Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan noted that all the convicts were originally convicted under section 323/326/120-B IPC read with section 149 IPC. However, due to a typographical mistake, offence under Section 323 was mentioned twice and offence under Section 326 IPC was not mentioned in the column of conviction. Accordingly, the trial court resorted the provisions of section 362 CrPC as per which, a clerical or arithmetical error can be corrected.

However, it was brought to the Court's attention that in the corrections made in the original order, which was signed by the Magistrate, the sentence was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. This was done under the signatures of Reader of the Court and not the Magistrate.

The Petitioner argued that once the Judicial Magistrate has passed the order on sentence, the corrections in the original judgment, if any, was to be done under the signatures of the Judicial Magistrate only, though it will be a debatable issue whether subsequent to passing of any judgment, the same Judicial Magistrate can enhance the sentence from 02 months to 02 years.

Therefore, the instant petition was moved for setting aside the order whereby during the pendency of the appeal, the judgment passed by the trial Court, was amended and modified.

The court in this case held that it requires an inquiry to know as to how the corrections were made under the signatures of the Reader of the Court concerned, thereby enhancing the sentence, though, in the original order, it was only directed to correct the typographical mistake.

Though all these points need to be decided by the Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, who herself is administrative head of the Sessions Division, Tarn Taran and on the face of it, it requires an inquiry as to how the corrections were made under the signatures of the Reader of the Court concerned, thereby enhancing the sentence, though in the original order, passed by the trial Court, it was only directed that instead of Section 323 IPC, which is mentioned at two places, Section 326 IPC be substituted at one place and there was no such direction to enhance the sentence from 02 months to 02 years.

Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the lower appellate Court will allow the amendment in the grounds of appeal assailing to the aforesaid order and after conducting an inquiry on the administrative side will decide the appeal in accordance with the law.

Court finally concluded that while deciding the appeal, the lower appellate Court will also record the findings on whether in terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C., such modification was permissible under law or not. Hence, Prayer in this petition stands amended and modified.

Case Title : Gurmahabir Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 123

Click Here To Read/Download Order