JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann. J.:- The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., terming it as a “curative petition”, for recalling order dated 11.10.2006 passed by this Court while dismissing the main petition of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No.28901-M of 2003 seeking quashing of complaint dated 06-12-2001 filed by Insecticide Inspector, Nawanshahr under Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 punishable under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act. The said petition was dismissed by this Court on October 11, 2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court has inherent powers to reconsider its order so as to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. Reliance was placed on Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another A.I.R. 2002 SC 1771 to contend that though the earlier petition of the petitioner has already been dismissed, yet to prevent abuse of the process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, this Court may reconsider its judgment in exercise of its inherent powers. 4. I am afraid whether the present petition which has been termed by the petitioner as a “curative petition” under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Once an order has already been passed in the main petition on October 11, 2006 by dismissing the same, the said order can neither be recalled nor reviewed in view of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. The said provision is reproduced hereunder: “S.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 or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.” In Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa A.I.R. 2001 SC 43, it was clearly held that S.362 Cr.P.C. extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment. The Court, while relying on State of Orissa Vs.
The Court, while relying on State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Agarwala A.I.R. 1979 SC 87 held as under: “Section 362 of the 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 arithmetical error. The Section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. The. reliance of the respondent on Talab Haji Hussain’s case (AIR 1958 SC 376 : 1958 Cri LJ 701) (supra) is misconceived. Even in that case it was pointed that inherent powers conferred on High Courts under Section 561A (Section 482 of the new Code) has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is not disputed that the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 7-1-1999. The new Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in view the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment”. In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the filing of curative petition in rarest of rare cases and that too only against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court. It was held as under: “The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment.
It was held as under: “The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment. We are faced with competing principles ensuring certainty and finality of a judgment of the Court of last resort and dispensing justice on reconsideration of a judgment on the ground that it is vitiated being in violation of the principle of natural justice or apprehension of bias due to a judge who participated in decision making process not disclosing his links with a party to the case, or abuse of the process of the court. Such a judgment, far from ensuring finality, will always remain under the cloud of uncertainty. Almighty alone is the dispenser of absolute justice - a concept which is not disputed but by a few. We are of the view that though Judges of the highest Court do their best, subject of course to the limitation of human fallibility, yet situations may arise, in the rarest of the rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a final judgment to set right miscarriage of justice complained of. In such case, it would not only be proper but also obligatory both legally and morally to rectify the error. After giving our anxious consideration to the question, we are persuaded to hold that the duty to do justice in these rarest of rare cases shall have to prevail over the policy of certainty of judgment as though it is essentially in public interest that a final judgment of the final court in the country should not be open to challenge yet there may be circumstances, as mentioned above, wherein declining to reconsider the judgment would be oppressive to judicial conscience and cause perpetuation of irremediable injustice.” 5. It has further been made clear in para 49 of the said judgment that only the Supreme Court would entertain a curative petition so as to reconsider its judgment in exercise of its inherent power.
It has further been made clear in para 49 of the said judgment that only the Supreme Court would entertain a curative petition so as to reconsider its judgment in exercise of its inherent power. The said observation is as under: “The upshot of the discussion in our view is that this Court, to prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.” In view of the above, the present petition filed by the petitioner for recalling the earlier order passed by this Court on 11-10-2006 while dismissing the main petition, is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed. ------------------------