A judgment once signed cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to review a judgment.

( 1 ) THIS is an application purporting to be under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. for recalling of the judgment dated 23rd February 1978 made by Honble S. K. Kaul, J. in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1976 whereby he dismissed the appeal of applicant Ram Surat against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kheri by his judgment and order dated 13th March, 1976.

( 2 ) APPLICANT Ram Surat was tried along with Chandra Bali and Shamsud-din in the court of the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheri. All the three accused persons were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 of the I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge by his order referred to above sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Against this judgment and order two appeals were preferred in this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1976 was preferred by Shamsuddin while Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1976 was preferred by Chandrabali and applicant Ram Surat. Both these appeals came up for hearing before Honble S. K. Kaul, J. on 28-21978. On that date the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Shamshuddin argued the case on his behalf. The counsel who was representing applicant Ram Surat and Chandra Bali did not put in appearance. Chandrabali and applicant Ram Surat were not present in the Court personally also. No prayer for adjournment of the case was also made on behalf of the applicant Ram Surat and Chandra Bali. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for Shamshuddin and going through the record of the case, Honble S. K. Kaul, J. allowed the appeal of Shamshuddin and set aside his conviction and sentence. The learned Judge considered the case of applicant on merits and found that the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned court below was merited. Some observation was made in respect of Chandrabali also.

( 3 ) AFTER the two appeals had been deposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove; the present application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. was made on behalf of Ram Surat alone.

( 4 ) IN this application it has been asserted that the counsel for the applicant had come to court on the date the appeal was fixed for hearing but in court he received information that his son had met with an accident and had suffered injuries. This information perplexed the counsel who immediately rushed home from where he intended to send message to this Court. The condition of the son was serious and the learned Counsel could not get any one to convey the message to this Court. On this basis it is asserted that the cause for nonappearance of the counsel and the applicant on the date of hearing was sufficient and, therefore the applicant was entitled to rehearing of the case. It has also been asserted that the case of the applicant stood on the same footing as that of Shamsuddin who had the benefit of having his case argued by a counsel and he, therefore, got acquittal from the charges levelled against him.

( 5 ) THE above application has been opposed by the learned Government Advocate who asserted that the application was beyond the scope of Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel argued that once the judgment of this Court had been signed the same could not be reviewed as there was no provision in the Code in that behalf. The learned Counsel further argued that in view of the provision contained in Section 362 of the Cr. P. C. 1973, the judgment of the court became final and could be altered or reviewed only to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, no clerical or arithmatical error having been pointed out in the application, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court could, not be invoked. The learned Government Advocate contends that to review the judgment in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court would be contrary to the specific provision contained in Section 362 of the Code.

( 6 ) THE scope of Section 561a of the Cr. P. C. 1898 came to be considered by a