Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 24 (CHH)

DHARAMRAM v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-01-10

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for extension of time to deposit the fine amount enhanced by this Court vide judgment dated 10th July, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 511/2004. 3. Petitioner Dharamram was convicted under Sections 326 and 323 IPC and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Pendra Road vide judgment dated 29-04-2004 in Sessions Trial No. 367/2002, in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 326 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Under Section 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 4. Being aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment dated 29-04-2004, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal No. 511/2004 before this Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 and 326 was maintained and he was sentenced for the period already undergone by him, however, the sentence of fine imposed was enhanced by this Court from 500/- to 5,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months in case the amount of fine is not deposited within 2 month. 5. Shri Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is very poor person and is not good financially, therefore, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of fine in time. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to grant some more time to deposit the amount of fine. 6. Per contra, Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent argued that this Court has already taken lenient view and after passing the judgment, this Court has no power to review or alter its earlier judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 8. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs thus:- “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.” 9. In Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2012 Cri.L.J. 2093, 2012 CRI.LJ. In Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2012 Cri.L.J. 2093, 2012 CRI.LJ. 2093, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "9. This Court in a recent judgment in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc., AIR 2012 SC 364 : (2012 AIR SCW 207) dealt with the issue considering a very large number of earlier judgments of this Court including Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1232 : (2011 AIR SCW 1473) and came to the conclusion: "Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgments as the Judge becomes functus officio. Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law." 10. In State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Agarwala etc. 1979 Cri.L.J. 33 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "Once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Sections 369 and 424 do not restrict the prohibition under Sections 369 to the trial Court alone. The purpose of S. 424 is to prescribe mode of delivering of judgment, the language and the contents of the judgment, while Section 369 is general in its application and prohibits all courts from altering or reviewing its judgment when once it has signed it." 11. In Ajit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 1982 Cri.L.J. 1215 (FB), the High Court of Punjab-Haryana held thus:- “10. Repelled on this basic legal stand, the learned counsel for the petitioner had then faintly attempted to contend that the relief of the extension of time for the deposit of fine at least would not amount to a review or alteration of the original judgment. State of Punjab 1982 Cri.L.J. 1215 (FB), the High Court of Punjab-Haryana held thus:- “10. Repelled on this basic legal stand, the learned counsel for the petitioner had then faintly attempted to contend that the relief of the extension of time for the deposit of fine at least would not amount to a review or alteration of the original judgment. In this context it deserves to be recalled that the appellate order whilst granting conditional relief had clearly directed that in the event of non-compliance of this condition the appellants would surrender and undergo the remaining portions of their substantive sentences. On the failure to comply with the condition of the payment of fine within four months the status quo ante would thus be restored and the substantive sentences of imprisonment would be resuscitated. Consequently the allowance of the application would involve a clear review of the earlier judgment on the point of sentence and setting aside the same the payment of fine would have to be substituted.......” 12. After going through the judgment passed by this Court in the above said criminal appeal, it is gathered that this Court categorically came to hold that the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offence under Sections 326 and 323 IPC. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount was enhanced. The petitioner was granted 2 months time for depositing the fine amount, therefore, it appears that there is no clerical or arithmetical error in the judgment passed by this Court and once this Court has passed the judgment on its own merit, this Court became functus officio. Hence, the time for depositing the fine amount granted by this Court to the petitioner cannot be extended by this Court as it would amount to review or alteration of the judgment. Therefore, Cr. M.P. No. 858/2012 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 13. For the foregoing reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Application Dismissed.