The Calcutta High Court recently while declining an application seeking to modify a judgment, has reiterated that the Court does not have the power under Section 482 CrPC to alter the earlier judgment after it has been signed. The bench noted:

“In view of the clear provision of Section 362, the High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to alter the earlier judgment after it has been signed. No criminal court can review its own judgment after it is signed”.

While referring to Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary (2014) 10 SCC 754 and noting the relevant provision under Section 362 CrPC, a bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri thus observed, “…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 application for grant of permission to compound the offence…It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has 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 has been set aside or modified to that extent. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the Court”.

Senior Advocate Milon Mukherjee appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Swapan Banerjee appeared for the respondent.

In the pertinent matter, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000 each under Section 326/ 34 and Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated November 29, 2019 passed by the Trial Court.

Pursuant to which, in appeal the High Court by an order dated June 9, 2022 had set aside the order of the Trial Court under Section 326/34 and Section 307/34 of the IPC and convicted them under Section 324/34 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each, and in default were to suffer imprisonment for six months each.

The Court giving a lenient view had passed the sentence considering the applicant’s prayer that he is a teacher by profession and if sentenced to imprisonment, he will be jobless.

However, when the applicant approached the school authorities for joining his service, the authorities rejected the prayer.

The applicant, therefore, sought additional direction from the school authorities that the order of affirmation of conviction would not stand in the way of the applicant joining his service.

The applicant attempted to persuade the Court saying that the Court must consider 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.

The bench, however, refused to accept the contentions and accordingly, rejected the application.

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

Click here to read/download the Judgment




Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

Agatha Shukla