ORDER 1. This is an application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the I.P.C. for compounding the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (for short the Act'). 2. With the consent of Shri Prashant Mishra, counsel for the applicant and Miss Maya Verma, Panel lawyer for the respondent/State, this case is being heard and disposed of finally. 3. It is not necessary to state the facts of this case in detail, except to say that this Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1993 Madhusudan v. State of M.P., by judgment dated 5.9.1997, maintaining the conviction and sentence of six month's R.I. under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and further six month's R.I. and a fine of Rupees One Thousand under Section 3(1)(xi) of 'the Act'. Both the sentences, imposed upon the applicant, were directed by the trial Court, to run concurrently. After dismissal of criminal appeal, the applicant has approached this Court with this application for compounding the offence. 4. The precise question is whether this Court, after delivery of its judgment, is authorised to allow the application of the applicant for compounding the offence Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :-- Section 362 : 'Court not to alter judgment -- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment for final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." A plain reading of the Section, quoted above, says that, after signing the judgment, for final order, disposing of a case, the Court cannot either alter or review, except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Court has ample powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., despite the wordings of Section 362 of the Cr. P.C. to pass an order in order to do justice between the parties Learned counsel for the applicant contends that exercising of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. would not amount either review or alter in the judgment of the criminal appeal. P.C., despite the wordings of Section 362 of the Cr. P.C. to pass an order in order to do justice between the parties Learned counsel for the applicant contends that exercising of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. would not amount either review or alter in the judgment of the criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decisions in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs. W.B. v. Mohan Singh and others, reported in AIR1975 SC 1002 and in the case of Hazi Abdul Rehman and another v. Ashok Kumar, reported in 1991 MPLJ 747 . Learned counsel for the applicant specifically referred to paragraph 13 at page 752 of the decision in Hazi Abdul Rehman's case, 1991 MPLJ 747 (supra), for the proposition that the Court has power to undo grave miscarriage of justice or correcting inadvertent breach of mandatory provision of law. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the decisions in the case of Mandsaur Electric Supply Co., Ltd., Mandsaur v. Madhya Pradesh Government Electric Department, reported in 1981 MPLJ 297 , the case of Habu v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83, and in the case of Nazeem v. Asstt. Collector of Customs and another, reported in 1992 Cr. L.J. 390. Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. has also to be read in the context of this application. Consequence of compounding an offence is given in Sub-section 8 of Section 320 of the Cr. P.C., which provides that the composition of an offence under this Section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., this Court by allowing the applicant and the complainant to compound the offence shall in effect pass a judgment of acquittal. It is obvious that the effect of the operative portion of the judgment, delivered earlier on 5.9.1997, in Cr. Appeal No. 163 of 1993, is liable to be wiped out by the order, which the applicant requires this Court to pass by allowing the application for compounding the offence. Docs it not amount to altering or reviewing the judgment? It is obvious that the effect of the operative portion of the judgment, delivered earlier on 5.9.1997, in Cr. Appeal No. 163 of 1993, is liable to be wiped out by the order, which the applicant requires this Court to pass by allowing the application for compounding the offence. Docs it not amount to altering or reviewing the judgment? In the opinion of this Court, the effect of allowing the application for compounding the offence would radically change the judgment, delivered earlier, convicting and sentencing the applicant for six month's R.I. on both counts and a fine of Rupees One Thousand. In fact of Section 362 of the Cr. P.C., this Court cannot review nor can it alter its judgment. Therefore. recourse cannot be taken to residuary powers in Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for exercising the powers, which are prohibited by Section 362 of the Cr. P.C. It is well established rule of interpretation of the statutes that a section howsoever widely worded must be harmoniously construed with the other section of the same statute. No part of an enactment can be said to be override another unless it was expressly so intended. Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. was given to the High Court by way of residuary inherent powers. Apparently, it employs wide language purposely for filling in the gap which has not been provided for by body of the Code. It does not derogate from or override what is expressly prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The power to prevent abuse of process of Court and secure the ends of justice does not go so far as to prohibit an express implied prohibition provided for in other parts of the Code. The opening words "Nothing in the Code etc." are only meant to emphasize the residuary power of the Court and were not used to cut down the express language of any section. In the opinion of this Court, Section 362 of the Cr. P.C. prohibits alteration or review of judgment by the Court which passed it. If this view is not taken, a Judge can review his own judgment, when he thinks that he went wrong earlier. This interpretation would totally wipe out the effect of Section 362 of the Cr. P.C. The Court cannot acquit an accused after reviewing the judgment of conviction. If this view is not taken, a Judge can review his own judgment, when he thinks that he went wrong earlier. This interpretation would totally wipe out the effect of Section 362 of the Cr. P.C. The Court cannot acquit an accused after reviewing the judgment of conviction. What a Court cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly, by grant of permission to compound the offence. The judgment of conviction would be altered into the judgment of acquittal. Under such circumstances, this Court is firmly of the opinion that the application for compounding the offence should be made during the pendency of trial or appeal and not after a judgment is delivered. The Court, after delivering the Judgment, becomes functions officio. It cannot review or alter its judgment, but can correct only clerical or arithmetical error, as provided under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Consequently this application fails and is dismissed.