The Code of Criminal Procedure confers absolute sanctity to the judgment once it is pronounced, and no Court can alter or review the judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

The Criminal Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No. 52448 of 2016 dated 15.02.2016 has been filed by the applicant-revisionist with a prayer to recall the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the present revision has been dismissed on merits. The order dated 09.02.2016 is reproduced herein below:-.

"1. Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. However, learned AGA is present. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, in Complaint Case No.3457 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2010, under Sections 376, 452, 346, 347, 348, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.-Civil Line, District Allahabad, whereby the complaint case has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 21.08.2012 dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

4. In view of above facts from the averment made in application 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima facie no cognizable offence is made out and learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the fact of the case rejecting the application by the impugned order. The revision is devoid of any merit and it is, accordingly, is dismissed.

5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

6. Certify this judgment to the Lower Court immediately."

2. The substratum of submissions advance by the learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist is that on 09.02.2016, he was busy in Court No. 55 and when he reached Court No.9, he came to know that in Court No. 9, transferred cases of Court No. 43 are being taken up and cases of Court No. 9 have been transferred to Court No. 28 and thereupon he reached Court No. 28 and got an information that the criminal revision, which was listed at serial No. 8, has been dismissed and, therefore this recall application has been moved. On the strength of aforesaid fact, last plank of submission is that order dated 09.02.2016 is liable to be recalled.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed by contending that the criminal revision has been dismissed on merits, therefore, the order dated 09.02.2016 is not liable to be recalled.

4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is true that on 09.02.2016 no one appeared on behalf of revisionist to press the revision, therefore the Court himself gone through the impugned order and perusing the record of the case did not find manifest error or otherwise illegality so as to warrant interference, hence dismissed the case by order dated 09.02.2016 on merits.

5. Now under the facts and circumstances of this case, issue for consideration before this Court is whether relief as claimed by the revisionist is barred by section 362 Cr.P.C. Before dealing into the issue, it is relevant to mention Section 362 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

"362. Court not to after judgment.- 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."

6. Here, it would also be useful to quote some decisions of the Apex Court on the scope and object of section 362 Cr.P.C., which are as follows:-

(i) In the case of Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain and others, (2008) 2 SCC 705, the Apex Court held as under:

"31.The section makes it clear that a Court cannot alter or review its judgment or final order after it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. T