Except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors, no court can alter a finalised judgement: Calcutta HC reaffirms

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a criminal application which was filed for modification of the judgment.

The court further observed, "No judgment or final order proclaimed by a court can be revised or reviewed once signed, except to fix a clerical or arithmetic error."

The Single Judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said that section 362 of CrPC is abundantly clear that a clerical or arithmetical error can only be corrected after pronouncing of a judgment. Once judgment is pronounced, even the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for a grant of permission to compound the offence.

The present case was hearing an application for modification of judgment dated June 09, 2022, passed by the same court in CRA 722 of 2019 by Additional Sessions Judge, Raghunathpur, Purulia

The applicants were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5000 each under Section 326/ 34 and Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code in CRA 722 of 2019.

In setting aside the order, the court had reframed the charges under Sections 324 and 34 of the IPC and ordered a Rs 10,000 fine, failing which the accused would be imprisoned for six months.

The advocate appearing for the applicant stated that the judgment was passed considering the prayer made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is a teacher by profession and if sentenced to imprisonment, he will be jobless.

Further, the counsel said that the applicant approached the school authorities of Dhakia Anchalik Vidyaniketan at Ranjitpur for joining his service. However, upon production of the documents, the school authorities rejected the prayer of the applicant for joining his service. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant application praying direction upon the school authorities to allow the applicant to join and continue his service.

The advocate also submitted that the court can take into consideration the principle laid down in the Probation of Offenders Act and pass an order keeping the appellants under probation because a sentence of fine also carries with it the consequence of imprisonment in case the accused fails to pay the fine.

After this, the present case noted that no criminal court can review its own judgment after it is signed. It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter had been finally disposed of by a Court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal had been set aside or modified to that extent. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is the correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the Court.

The court held that they have no power or authority to alter the order of sentence passed in CRA 722 of 2019.

Accordingly, the court rejected the application for modification.

Case Title: Dipak Kumar Mondal & Ors. v The State of West Bengal