Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
B. K. Behera, J.
Shashibhushan Tripathi and another- Petitioners
versus
State–Opp. Party
Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1984
Decided on 13-7-1984
M/s. S. C. Mohapatra, B. Panda, A. K. patnaik, Md. Fahim and Miss P. Mohanty -For the Petitioners.
Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, A.G.A.-For the Opp. Party.
IMPORTANT POINT
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.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 133 and 362-Order under Section 133 is final-Proceeding revived under Section 362-is the revival illegal? (Yes) -No Court, after judgment is signed, can alter or review the same-Is there exception to this rule? (Yes)-A clerical or arithmetical error may be corrected Result, order under Section 362 quashed. (Para 2)
JUDGMENT
B.K. Behera, J.- I have beard Mr. Mohapatra for the petitioners and Mr. N. C. Panigrahi, the learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. The order dropping a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a final order within the meaning of page no. 341 section 362 of the same Code has been reviewed and the proceeding has been revived illegally on an application made for it. As provided in Section 362 of the Code, save as otherwise provided by the 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. A clerical or arithmetical error is an order 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 upon its discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. (See Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and another1 and Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and another2. No case can be revived by reviewing the final judgment or order. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Ranka Sahu alias Rankanidhi Sahu & others v. Pratap Ch. Das and others.3
1. I would allow the revision and quash the impugned order.
Revision allowed.
1. A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1047.
2. A.I.R. ]981 S.C. 736.
3. 1983 Cutt. Law Reporter (Cri.) 188.
