IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, J.
Ravi Bharti S/o Baisakhu Bharti – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 1590 of 2023
Decided on : 24-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 read with Section 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 – Offence of Attempt to murder - Challenged Conviction - Whether after a judgment is passed deciding Criminal Appeal No. 984 of 2008 directing depositing of fine within a stipulated time, in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.PC - Held, Learned counsel for applicant submits that due to miscommunication, judgment dated passed by this Court could not be communicated to applicant and applicant was not aware of fact that enhanced fine amount is required to be paid within period of three months - Legal position is in this regard is well settled that only clerical and arithmetical errors could be corrected and court cannot review its order exercising inherent power - Argument advance by learned counsel for the applicant does not hold water in light of above authoritative pronouncement - Hence in considered view of this Court applicant is not entitled to relief claimed - Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief:-
2. Facts of the case in brief is that the applicant namely Ravi Bharti was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine three months additional rigorous imprisonment was imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, CG in S.T. No. 135/2008 vide judgment dated 06.10.2008. The applicant challenged the same before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 984 of 2008. This Court vide its judgment dated 23.03.2023 passed the following orders:-
(ii) The fine amount of Rs.2000/ (for each appellant) imposed by the learned trial court is enhanced to Rs.7,000/ for each appellant. Appellants are directed to pay the fine within a period of three months from today. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergone rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(iii) On depositing the fine, the injured/complainant (PW5) Shiv Kumar shall be paid compensation of Rs.10,000/ in view of Section 357 of CrPC after due identification.
(iv) The appellants are reported to be on bail, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months, in view of Section 437A of the CrPC.
3. While partly allowing the appeal this Court has enhanced the fine amount imposed by the trial Court from 2000/- to 7000/- for each appellants. It is further directed that to pay the fine amount within a period of three months from the date of judgment i.e. 23.03.2023 in default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo RI for three months. The applicant could not deposit the enhanced fine amount within a period of time as provided by this Court, therefore, the petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed praying for sometime to deposit the same.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to miscommunication, the judgment dated 23.03.2023 passed by this Court could not be communicated to the applicant and the applicant was not aware of the fact that the enhanced fine amount is required to be paid within the period of three months. As soon as in the month of June when he came to know about passing of the judgment, he tried to deposit the enhanced fine amount but the learned trial Court refused to accept the same because the period to deposit the same was already over, therefore, in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted to pay the amount within seven days. There is no deliberate fault on his part and he is still ready and willing to deposit the fine as ordered by the Hon’ble Court. He submitted that in order to do justice, the petition may be allowed. He submitted that section 482 of Cr.P.C. give ample powers to this Court and in the ends of justice the petition may be allowed. He placed reliance of an order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 933 of 2014 dated 17.
Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 169
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Man Singh reported in (2019) 10 SCC 161
Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyarelal and another reported in (1981) 1 SCC 500
Simrikhia Vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & another reported in (1990) 2 SCC 437
A court cannot alter or review its judgment post-signature except for clerical errors, as outlined in Sections 362 and 482 of the CrPC.
Court cannot extend time for fine payment without altering its prior judgment, as it would constitute an impermissible review.
The prohibition against altering a signed judgment under Section 362 of the CrPC was reaffirmed, preventing extensions for fine deposits.
Imprisonment for non-payment of fine must terminate upon payment as per S.68 IPC.
The court emphasized that the consideration of grounds raised in the appeal itself while exercising jurisdiction under Section 148 N.I.Act would consume much time and was not envisaged by the provisi....
The imposition of a deposit condition for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory and can be modified based on judicial discretion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.