The prohibition against altering a signed judgment under Section 362 of the CrPC was reaffirmed, preventing extensions for fine deposits.

1.Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under S.397 read with S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'the Cr PC'), the present two applicants, namely, Jeet Ram Rathiya and Rajendra Kumar have preferred the instant revision questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19-5-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in MJC No.176/2002, by which their application for extension of time to deposit the amount of fine, as directed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.391/2004 on 27-8-2012, has been rejected.

2. The present two applicants were tried and convicted by judgment dated 29-3-2004 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.176/2002 for offence under S.323 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth 'the IPC) and under S.325 read with S.34 of the IPC and they were sentenced therefor with rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.100 each and with rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.200 each, respectively.

3. This Court, by judgment dated 27-8-2012, partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.391/2004, filed by the applicants and upheld the conviction under S.323/34 of the IPC and under S.325/34 of the IPC. However, the jail sentence awarded to them was reduced to the period already undergone by them and the amounts of fine imposed upon them were enhanced from Rs.100 to Rs.1,000 and from Rs.200 to Rs.5,000. The applicants were granted 2 months' time to deposit the amount of fine. The applicants did not deposit the amount of fine within the stipulated period and filed an application (MJC No.176/2002) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge stating inter alia that they could not come to know about the judgment dated 27-8-2012 passed by this Court and consequently, they could not deposit the amount of fine as directed by this Court and, therefore, the period for deposit of amount of fine be extended. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 19-5-2014, rejected the application holding that the consequence of not depositing the amount of fine is already mentioned in the judgment dated 27-8-2012, by which they are liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

4. Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that though the applicants were regularly appearing before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh yet they could not come to know about the order of this Court directing them to deposit the amount of fine enhanced in place of the remaining part of jail sentence awarded to them. He would further submit that the default on their part is bona fide and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality in rejecting the application and as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the applicants be allowed to deposit the amount of fine ordered by the judgment dated 27-8-2012.

5. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Ranjan Sinha and Shri Aditya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyers appearing for the State / non - applicant would submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application as the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to review the judgment by virtue of S.362 of the Cr.P.C.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the judgment dated 27-8-2012 and the impugned order dated 19-5-2014 with utmost circumspection.

7. In order to decide the issue, it would be profitable to notice the operative part of the judgment dated 27-8-2012 rendered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.391/2004 Jaglal