Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 775 (PAT)

Mahendra Singh v. State of Bihar

2000-06-23

R.N.PRASAD

body2000
ORDER The appeal was heard and dismissed with modification on 10th December, 1999. The conviction of the appellants under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each to the informant. The fine awarded was ordered to be deposited in the court within two months from the date of passing of the judgment. In default of payment, the appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants filed a petition for modification/extension of time to deposit the fine awarded by this court. Learned counsel for the appellants on 5.4.2000 sought permission to withdraw the said petition to file a fresh application for modification. 0Accordingly, prayer was allowed. The appellants, thereafter, tiled a fresh petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for modification/extension of time to deposit the fine awarded by the court. The said petition was heard on 1.5.2000. Learned counsel for the appellants, after hearing, stated that he is not pressing the said petition for modification/extension of time to deposit as it is not maintainable in view of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the petition was dismissed .as not pressed. A fresh petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for modification/extension of time to deposit the fine awarded by this court vide judgment dated 10.12.1999. It is an admitted position that the judgment in appeal was delivered on 10.12.1999. Two months time was allowed to deposit the fine from the date of passing of the judgment. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that 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 or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid provision that after signing the judgment only clerical or arithmetical error can be rectified. The court has no jurisdiction to alter/review/modify the judgment except in the aforesaid two circumstances. It is obvious that there was neither any clerical nor arithmetical mistake in the judgment nor learned counsel for the appellants argued to the aforesaid effect. The court has no jurisdiction to alter/review/modify the judgment except in the aforesaid two circumstances. It is obvious that there was neither any clerical nor arithmetical mistake in the judgment nor learned counsel for the appellants argued to the aforesaid effect. Therefore, the petition filed by the appellants is merely an abuse of the process of the court. Furthermore, inherent power of the court cannot be exercised when section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically prohibited the alteration/review of the judgment. The law has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 736. In the said case clerical/arithmetical error has been explained and it has further been held that inherent power of the court cannot be exercised in a case which is specifically prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reference in this connection may also be made to the decisions in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Agarwala, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 87 and in the case of Mosst. Simrikhia Vs. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee and another, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1605. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the application for modification/ extension of time to deposit the fine allowed vide judgment and order dated 10th December, 1999 is hereby rejected.