Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was convicted for various offences by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet in S.C.Nos.566 and 567 of 2004 by the separate judgments dated 011. 2007. Likewise the petitioner has also been convicted for various offences by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge by judgment dated 14.03.2005 rendered in S.C.No.571 of 2003. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the judgment dated 011. 2007 rendered in S.C.No.567 of 2004 directed the sentences imposed against the petitioner in S.C.No.567 of 2004, 566 of 2004, 270 of 2004 and 571 of 2004 to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said Judgment, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of stating S.C.No.571 of 2003 by mistake and due to typographical error has stated the S.C number as S.C.571 of 2004. The petitioners mother filed a petition dated 29.08.2008 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, but the same has been returned with the following endorsement namely "This court has also disposed the cases in S.C.566 of 2007 and S.C.567 of 2007 on 011. 2007. As such this Court has no power to review the same according to the code". In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed above Criminal Original Petition sought for the aforesaid direction. 2. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and heard Mr. A. Saravanan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side). 3. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 011. 2007 rendered in S.C.No.567 of 2004, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of mentioning the case Number as S.C.No.571 of 2003 has mentioned the case Number as S.C.No.571 of 2004. The said mistake is only a typographical error and therefore the bar under section 362 Cr.P.C will not apply. At this juncture, it will be useful to refer to the provisions contained in 362 Cr.P.C, which reads 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 after or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." 4. 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 after or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." 4. A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes in abundantly clear that the Court which rendered the judgment is competent to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. As pointed out by the learned counsel, the error in the order is only a clerical or typographical error, which can be corrected and altered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, and therefore the petitioner is hereby directed to file a proper petition before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet and if such a petition is filed, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet is directed to correct the aforesaid error which has crept in the order dated 011. 2007 in S.C.No.567 of 2004.