# Mohd. Yameen and another v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 166
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-02-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 33249 of 2009
- **Bench:** Rajesh Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-yameen-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41532
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 362Power to recall the order-once the
judgment singed in open Court-except
clerical error-court has no power to
recall/alter
the
same
in
garb
of
correction.

Held: Para 5

A perusal of the said section makes it
clear that once the judgment or final
order disposing of a case has been
signed by a court, it will not be altered or
reviewed except for correcting a clerical
or arithmetical error. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Suraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal, 1981
Cr.L.J, 269 has observed that a clerical or
arithmetical error is an error occasioned
by an accidental slip or omission of the
court. It represents that which the court
never intended to say. It is an error
apparent on the face of the record and
does not depend for its discovery on
argument or disputation. An arithmetical
error is a mistake of calculation, and a
clerical error is a mistake in wring or
typing.
In
view
of
the
above
observations, it is clear that under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. only clerical or
arithmetical errors can be corrected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1990 SC 1605, AIR 2001 SC 2145, AIR
2001 SC 43, (2005)12 SCC 361, (2008) 2 SCC
705, (2008) 8, SCC 673.

## Text

166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Security Act. The District Magistrate
rejected the representation on hypertechnical ground and not on merits. Since
we are allowing the petition on the ground
of unjustifiable delay, we do not propose
to go into other aspects in detail.

18. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the petition is allowed and it
is directed that the petitioner shall be set
at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any
other case.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 33249 of 2009

Mohd. Yameen and another ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Kautilya

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 362Power to recall the order-once the
judgment singed in open Court-except
clerical error-court has no power to
recall/alter
the
same
in
garb
of
correction.

Held: Para 5

A perusal of the said section makes it
clear that once the judgment or final
order disposing of a case has been
signed by a court, it will not be altered or
reviewed except for correcting a clerical
or arithmetical error. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Suraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal, 1981
Cr.L.J, 269 has observed that a clerical or
arithmetical error is an error occasioned
by an accidental slip or omission of the
court. It represents that which the court
never intended to say. It is an error
apparent on the face of the record and
does not depend for its discovery on
argument or disputation. An arithmetical
error is a mistake of calculation, and a
clerical error is a mistake in wring or
typing.
In
view
of
the
above
observations, it is clear that under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. only clerical or
arithmetical errors can be corrected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1990 SC 1605, AIR 2001 SC 2145, AIR
2001 SC 43, (2005)12 SCC 361, (2008) 2 SCC
705, (2008) 8, SCC 673.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.)

1. This Criminal Misc. Correction
Application No. 26950 of 2010 has been
moved with a prayer that the order dated
23.3.09
passed
in
Criminal
Misc.
Application No.33249/09, Mohd. Yameen
& another Vs. State of U.P. & another
may be recalled.

2. A perusal of the record shows that
after the filing of the charge sheet in
Crime
no.390/08
under
Sections
420,467,471 and 120B IPC, PS Civil
Lines, District Meerut in the court of
Addl. CJM Ist, Meerut, the applicants
filed Criminal Misc. Application No.
33249/09, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the said charge sheet. That petition
was finally disposed of vide order dated
23.3.09.

3. Now the counsel for the
applicants by way of this correction
application no.26950/10 wants that the
said order may be recalled.

4. I have heard learned counsel for
the applicants as well as the learned AGA.
1 All] Mohd. Yameen and another V. State of U.P. and another
167
In respect of the said controversy, a
reference made be made to Section 362 of
Cr.P.C., which runs as under:-

"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 or clerical or arithmetical
error."

5. A perusal of the said section
makes it clear that once the judgment or
final order disposing of a case has been
signed by a court, it will not be altered or
reviewed except for correcting a clerical
or arithmetical error. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Suraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal, 1981
Cr.L.J, 269 has observed that a clerical or
arithmetical error is an error occasioned
by an accidental slip or omission of the
court. It represents that which the court
never intended to say. It is an error
apparent on the face of the record and
does not depend for its discovery on
argument or disputation. An arithmetical
error is a mistake of calculation, and a
clerical error is a mistake in wring or
typing. In view of the above observations,
it is clear that under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
only clerical or arithmetical errors can be
corrected.

6. In another judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mosst.Simrikhia
Vs. Dolly Mukherjee, AIR 1990 SC 1605,
it has been laid down as under:-

"Section 362 of the Code expressly
provides that 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
save as otherwise provided by the Court.
Section 482 enables the High Court to
make such order as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under the Code or
to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The inherent powers, however, as
much are controlled by principle and
precedent as are its expressed powers by
statute. If a matter is covered by an
express letter of law, the court cannot
give a go bye to the statutory provisions
and instead evolve a new provision in the
garb of inherent jurisdiction."

7. In another judgment of the Apex
Court,
State
of
Kerala
Vs.
M.M.
Manikantan Nair, AIR 2001 SC 2145, the
three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court
have held as under:-

"The Code of Criminal Procedure
does not authorize the High Court to
review its judgment or order passed either
in exercise of its appellate, revisional or
original jurisdiction. Section 362 of the
Code prohibits the Court after it has
signed its judgment or final order
disposing a case from altering or
reviewing the said judgment or order
except
to
correct
a
clerical
or
arithmetical error. This prohibition is
complete and no criminal Court can
review its own judgment or order after it
is signed. By the first order dated
31.5.2000, the High Court rejected the
prayer of the respondents for quashing
the criminal proceeding. This order
attained its finality. By the impugned
order, the High Court reversed its earlier
order
and
quashed
the
criminal
proceedings for want of proper sanction.
By no stretch of imagination it can be said
that by the impugned order, the High
Court only corrected any clerical or
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
arithmetical error. In fact the impugned
order is an order of review, as the earlier
order was reversed, which could not have
been done as there is no such provision
under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
but there is an interdict against it."

8. In another judgment Hari Singh
Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, AIR
2001 SC 43, the Supreme Court has again
laid down as under:-

"Section 362 of the Code mandates
that 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.
The Section is based on an acknowledged
principle of law that once a matter is
finally disposed of by a Court, the said
Court in the absence of a specific
statutory provisions becomes functus
officio and the disentitled to entertain a
fresh prayer for the same relief unless the
former order of final disposal is set aside
by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a
manner prescribed by law. The Court
becomes functus officio the moment the
official order disposing of a case is
signed. Such an order cannot be altered
except to the extent of correcting a
clerical
or
arithmetical
error.
The
reliance of the respondents on Talab Haji
Hussain's case (A.I.R. 1958 SC 376 :
1958
Cri.
L.J.
701)
(supra)
is
misconceived. Even in that case it was
pointed that inherent powers conferred on
High Courts under Section 561 A (Section
482 of the new Court) has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and
only where such exercise is justified by
the tests specifically laid down in the
Section itself. It is not disputed that the
petition filed under Section 482 of Code
had been finally disposed of by the High
Court on 07.01.1999. The new Section
362 of Code which was drafted keeping in
view the recommendations of the 41st
Report of the Law Commission and the
Joint Select Committees appointed for the
purpose, has extended the bar of review
not only to the judgment but also to the
final orders that than the judgment."

9. The other judgments of Hon'ble
the Apex Court on the same controversy
are the following:-

1. Suredra Singh Vs. State of Bihar
(2005)12 SCC 361.
2.
Sunita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain,
(2008) 2 SCC 705.
3.
State Vs. K.V.Rajendran & Others,
(2008) 8, SCC 673.

In
view
of
the
above
pronouncements, the present application
is not maintainable.

The
application
is
therefore,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36117 of 2009

Sri Sunil Kumar Verma
...Petitioner
Versus
Devendra Prakash Bansal and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Arora

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.M. Garg