Prohibition on review of judgment under S.362 of the CrPC and the interpretation of sanction requirements under S.122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act after retirement.

1. Leave is granted.

2. The respondent has been booked for trial along with another accused for offences punishable under Ss.120B, 409, 468, 471 and 477 of IPC and S.13(1)(c) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the respondent No.1 was that while he was working as the Secretary of Melukavu Grama Panchayat along with another accused, who was the Head Clerk of the Panchayat,

committed criminal conspiracy to misappropriate the funds of the Panchayat which was earmarked for construction of waiting sheds, Tribal Training Centres etc. and misappropriated large amount by creating bogus receipts and bills and thereby committed the above offences. Initially the respondent was placed under suspension and subsequently was allowed to retire from service on attaining superannuation.

3. The respondent filed a revision petition under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Kerala for quashing the said criminal proceeding on the ground that there was no sanction to prosecute him as required under S.122 of the Kerala Panchayat Act. That petition viz., Crl.M.C. No. 1137 of 2000 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment, dated 31st May, 2000 on the grounds that there was proper sanction to prosecute the respondent and a prima facie case was made out against him. Subsequently, a Miscellaneous Petition was filed in the above criminal case by the respondent for clarification of the above order. This petition was finally allowed by the impugned order, dated 13th July 2000 by the same learned judge holding that there was no proper sanction from the competent authority and, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken against him. Being aggrieved, the State has approached this Court.

4. The first question which needs our consideration is whether the impugned Order, dated 13th July, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge clarifying the earlier Order, dated 31st May, 2000 holding that no cognizance against the respondent could have been taken for want of proper sanction is valid or not.

5. The first Order, dated 31st May, 2000 is a composite Order by which the petition under S.482 of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed on the grounds as stated above. By way of clarification this order was reversed by the impugned order and the criminal proceeding was quashed for want of proper sanction.

6. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the High Court to review its judgment or Order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction. S.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 31st May, 2000, the High Court rejected the prayer of the respondent 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 proceeding 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 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.

7. This Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC 169, held that S.362 of the Criminal Procedure 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 an arithmetical error and that this section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said