SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

B.K.BEHERA
Shashibhushan Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
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.

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 anoth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top