A court cannot review its own judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

N. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) THE core question for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is whether this Court has power to review its own judgment. To appreciate the law involved it is necessary to make a brief reference to the facts giving rise to the present case.

( 2 ) THE petitioner along with others stood convicted for the offence under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 and sentenced do suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanjia. Being aggrieved, they carried appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada which ultimately ended in dismissal. Thereafter they approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 170 of 1992 which came to be heard by S. K. Mohanty, J. who upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence available on record, concerned with the ultimate conclusion and findings recorded by both the Courts below and dismissal the revision. By filing the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner has urged that it was obligatory on the Court to apply Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the facts and circumstances of the case and give benefit thereof and release him on probation and that having not been done, for the interest of justice the Court in exercise of its inherent power should review that party of the judgment confirming the sentence and release him under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act.

( 3 ) OPPOSING the said prayer it was urged on behalf of the State that once the Court delivered judgement it becomes functus officio and therefore, cannot review its judgment in view of the bar created by Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' ).

( 4 ) IN view of the submissions made at the Bar, at the outset it is desirable to refer to Section 362 of the Code which reads as under :"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 a clerical or arithmetical error. "the aforesaid provision corresponds to Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short, 'old Code') which provided as follows :"save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, is the case of a High Court, by the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such High Court, no Court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error. "a bare reading of the said provision of the old Code clearly indicates that once a Court has signed the judgment, it cannot alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. In so far as the High Court is concerned, it however, provides that such prohibition will be subject to the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such High Court. The Section is, therefore, intended to apply to all Courts, the provision being "no Court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same". The operation of the said prohibition is saved if there is specific provision in the old Code itself or in any other law. By the amended provision of the Code, the law has been simplified inasmuch as the prohibition contained in Section 362 of the Code which has been made applicable to all Courts, says that no Court save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, shall alter or review the judgment or final order after it has signed the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. An analytical study of the statutory provision of both the Codes (old Code of 1898 and new Code of 1973) leaves no room for doubt that a Court after having signed a judgment or final order is denuded of power to alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

( 5 ) THE scope of power of the Court to review