Court cannot extend time for fine payment without altering its prior judgment, as it would constitute an impermissible review.

1. Heard.

2. This is an application filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for extension of time to deposit the fine amount enhanced by this Court vide judgment dated 14-6-2012 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2004.

3. Petitioner Bhagwat Sahu was convicted under S.294, S.323 and S.506 - B, IPC and sentenced by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur vide judgment dated 26-3-2004 in Special Case No. 98/2003, in the following manner : - Conviction Sentence
Under S.294, IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Under S.323, IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Under S.506 - B, IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

4. Being aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment dated 26-3-2004, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal bearing No. 319/2004 before this Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court was partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under S.294, S.323 and S.506 - B, IPC was upheld and he was sentenced for the period already undergone by him, however, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court was enhanced by this Court with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 month in case the amount of fine is not deposited within 2 months.

5. Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner is a very poor person and is not good financially, therefore, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of fine in time. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to grant some more time to deposit the amount of fine.

6. Per contra, Shri R. R. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State / respondent, argued that this Court has already taken a lenient view and after passing the judgment, this Court has no power to review or alter itself earlier judgment except to correct the clerical or arithmetical errors.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

8. S.362, of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs thus : -
"362. Court not to alter 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."

9. In Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana , 2012 CriLJ 2093 : AIR 2012 SC 1754 , the Hon"'ble Supreme Court held thus : -
"9. This Court in a recent judgment in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others, AIR 2012 SC 364 : 2012 AIR SCW 207 dealt with the issue considering a very large number of earlier judgments of this Court including Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 2011 SC 1232 : 2011 AIR SCW 1473 and came to the conclusion :
"Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the Court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the Statute itself after pronouncement of the judgments as the Judge becomes functs officio. Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law."

10. In State of Orissa v. Ram Chan