Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 179 (MP)

Moolchand v. State of M. P.

2008-02-01

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
ORDER 1. Petitioner by Shri Prabal Solanki, Advocate. 2. Respondent/State by Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, P.P. 3. Heard finally at motion stage. 4. This petition· has been filed under section 482 of CrPC for modification in the judgment dated 2.8.2007 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 0212001 [Hariram and others v. State of M.P.]. The operative para 18 of the relevant judgment is as follows: "18. So, looking to the facts circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants under sections 148,324/149,323/149 and 342 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Under sections 148,324/149, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them while under sections 323/149 and 342 of IPC, the sentence is reduced upto the period of six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The benefit of section 428 of CrPC be given to them. The conviction of the appellants under section 353 of IPC is hereby set aside. The amount of fine, if realized, it shall be treated as under section 324/149 of IPC. Bail bonds of the appellants shall stand discharged." 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing this petition <;>n behalf of the petitioner No. 1 Moolchand but he is pressing this petition only on behalf of the petitioner No.2 Jagdish. 6. In para 4 of the petition, it is mentioned that the petitioners are the Govt. servants and this order will come in the way of their service career. The petitioner No.1 is retired now and the petitioner No.2 is working till now. Thus, by way of this petition, the petitioner No. 2 is praying for modification in the judgment that the order of conviction will not affect in the service career of the petitioner because the offence is not like the trap case or bribe case or related to corruption. 7. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy that with the aid of section 482 of CrPC, the modification as sought by the petitioner can be done in the judgment which was finally declared by this Court. In this connection. Section 362 of CrPC is attracted which is as follows :-- "362. 7. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy that with the aid of section 482 of CrPC, the modification as sought by the petitioner can be done in the judgment which was finally declared by this Court. In this connection. Section 362 of CrPC is attracted which is as follows :-- "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." 8. Section 482 of CrPC deals with the inherent powers of the Court and lays down that : "482. Saving of inherent power of High Court. -- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 9. It is well settled that inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC can be exercised only when no other remedy is available in the litigant and nowhere a specific remedy is provided in the Statute, however, the power being extra-ordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. 10. In this case, petitioner No.2 wants modification in the judgment to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 being a Govt. servant, the impugned order or judgment will not come in the way of his service career. Admittedly, this is not a matter in which power of review can be exercised by this Court because it does not come in the purview of clerical or arithmetical error. 11. The apex Court in the case of Shri Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and another reported in AIR 1981 SC 736 , in which it was held as under: "The inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. It is true that the prohibition in section 362 against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force". It is true that the prohibition in section 362 against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force". Those words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362." 12. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the petition is hereby dismissed.