The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has no power to review or alter its earlier judgement within the criminal jurisdiction except to correct clerical errors.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The two meaningful questions which in essence fall for determination in this reference to the Full Bench are :-

(1) Whether the High Court has no power to review or alter its earlier judgement (except to correct clerical errors) rendered within the criminal jurisdiction ?

(2) Whether any alteration or modification of the sentence alone (without touching the merits or the section under which the conviction is recorded) would amount to a review in the eye of law ?

2. Equally at issue is the connected question whether the view expressed by the Division Bench in Lal Singh V/s. State, AIR 1970 Punj and Har 32 : (1970 Cri LJ 267), can still hold the field in the wake of the recent judgement in State of Orissa V/s. Ram Chander Agarwala, AIR 1979 SC 87 : (1979 Cri LJ 33).

3. The two petitioners were brought to trial on the charge of attempted murder before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The learned Judge, however, acquitted them of that charge but held Ajit Singh, petitioner guilty substantively under S.326, Penal Code and Charan Singh Petitioner under S.326 read with S.34, Penal Code, and imposed sentences of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100 and one years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 respectively. They appealed, and the matter came up before my learned brother Tewatia, J., sitting singly. While upholding their conviction, the sentence imposed was altered in the following terms :-

"Accordingly, instead of sending back the two appellants who are on bail, to jail, the unexpired portion of their sentence is converted into a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in addition to the fine already imposed by the trial Court. The entire fine is directed to be deposited within four months from today. In the event of non-compliance of this condition the appellants shall surrender and undergo the remaining portion of their substantive sentences. However, in the event of the realisation of the fine, half of the same shall be made over to Makhan Singh injured, who shall be intimated about his right to receive the part of the fine by the trial Court where the same is to be deposited. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."

4. It would appear that both the petitioners failed to deposit the fine within the time prescribed. The present application under S.482 of Criminal P.C. was then moved on their behalf praying that the petitioners may now be allowed to deposit the fine and the failure to do so within prescribed time be condoned. Noticing some discordance of judicial opinion on the point whether a relief of this nature could be allowed, my learned brother Tewatia, J. referred the matter to a larger Bench. When the case came up before the Division Bench, reliance on behalf of the petitioners was placed on Lal Singh case (1970 Cri LJ 267) (Punj and Har) (supra) whilst on behalf of the respondent-State it was contended that the ratio was no longer tenable in view of the observations of their Lordships in Ram Chander Agarwalas case (1979 Cri LJ 33) (SC) (supra). The present reference to the larger Bench was thus necessitated.

5. At the very outset it must be noticed that we are inclined to take the view that the two questions before us are now concluded by binding precedent. It would, therefore, be wasteful to examine the issue in principle and in fact within this jurisdiction one would be virtually precluded from doing so. Consequently it suffices to briefly indicate that the dictum of their Lordships in Ram Chander Agarwalas case (1979 Cri LJ 33) (SC) (supra) on a patently analogous issue now completely covers this field as well.

6. That two views were perhaps earlier possible and equally there might have been much to be said for the other side as well is manifest from the exhaustive judgement of the Division Bench, in Lal Singhs case (1970 Cri LJ 267) (Punj and Har) (supra) to which I was a party. Therein the virtually identical question pointedly raised with regard to the revisional juris