The court cannot alter or review its order once passed, as per Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it can correct a mistake in the order to prevent injustice and ensure that the ends of justice are met.

1. Mr. Sujan Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Recreation Advertising Services, the Petitioner in C.R.R.1208 of 2008, files the Affidavit-in-opposition. Let it be kept with the record.

2. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the Manika Poti Biswas, the Applicant in this CRAN Application, contends that while disposing of the Revisional Application being C.R.R.1208 of 2008, this Court made a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which is contrary to the statute and for that his client is not supposed to suffer. He takes me to the concluding portion of the order dated 16.3.2011 passed in C.R.R.1208 of 2008 and submits that this Court in Clause (a) directed—

“That the order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is however, modified to the effect that “in case of failure to pay compensation amount, the opposite parties should suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years” be added to what has been sentenced by the learned Trial Court.”

3. He refers to Sections 64, 65 & 66 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that according to provisions of law, the period for which the Court may direct the offender to suffer imprisonment in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed 1/4th of the term of the imprisonment which is maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine. Mr. Ganguly submits that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine. In fact, the learned Trial Court passed substantive sentence of imprisonment by way of detaining his client and Others till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of `6,50,000/-. No default clause was added to in case of failure to pay compensation. This Court while disposing of the Criminal Revisional Application added that default clause only and directed the opposite parties therein to pay compensation amount, failing which they suffer S.I for 2 years. The client of Mr. Ganguly, in fact, appeared in the Court and wanted to deposit proportionate fine on 7.5.2011. The learned Trial Court found it difficult to accept that proportionate fine amount because of the order passed by this Court in the Criminal Revisional Application whereby an the opposite parties were put under joint liability to pay the whole compensation amount of `6,50,000.

4. Mr. Ganguly submits, when this mistake of statutory provisions of law on the part of this Court caused sufferance to his client, it should be rectified by an appropriate order.

5. Mr. Sujan Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Recreation Advertising Services contends that in view of provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot alter or review its order which has once been passed.

6. Mr. Swapan Kr. Mallick, learned Counsel appearing or the opposite party/State contends that in view of the decisions of this Court in M.S. Tirupathi v. C.H. Ramakrishna Rao and Anr., 2010 (1) CLR (Cal) 391 and in view of Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2011 STPL (Web) 171 (SC), by the Hon’ble Apex Court together with A.R. Antulay’s case, no main should suffer cause because of mistake of the Court. The matter is entirely technical one and as such, he submits, Court should consider this for ex debito justitiae.

7. Upon considering the rival contentions of the learned Counsel of the parties and upon perusal of the record, order passed in C.R.R. 1208 of 2008, prayer made in C.R.A.N.918 of 2011 and the grounds taken opposing that prayer, this Court finds that the provisions of Sections 64, 65 & 66 of the Indian Penal Code had to be taken into consideration while this Court disposed of the Criminal Revisional Application. This Court wrongly modified the sentence by directing that in case of failure to pay compensation amount, the opposite parties should suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years. According to the Section 138 of the N.I. Act, maximum term of imprisonment can be imposed is two years. In view of provis