Enhancement notice and barred criminal review powers: Supreme Court explains scope of sentence enhancement and limits on High Court review

A general notice in enhancement proceedings was sufficient to support enhancement from fine to substantive imprisonment, because the accused was called upon to show cause against enhancement of sentence and the notice was not confined to fine. The Supreme Court also held that a High Court has no power to review or alter its own signed judgment in criminal appellate or revisional jurisdiction, since the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits alteration or review except for clerical correction, and inherent powers cannot override that express bar. The review order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice issued in proceedings for enhancement of sentence was sufficient to cover enhancement from fine to substantive imprisonment. (ii) Whether the High Court had power to review or alter its own signed judgment in criminal appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a notice issued in proceedings for enhancement of sentence was sufficient to cover enhancement from fine to substantive imprisonment.

Analysis: The notice and the order by which the reference was received showed that the respondents were called upon to show cause why their sentence should not be enhanced. The statutory requirement under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is that the accused must have an opportunity of being heard before enhancement of sentence. Section 439(6) further enables the convicted person, when called upon to show cause against enhancement, to show cause against conviction as well. The Court held that the notice was not confined to enhancement of fine and was broad enough to include enhancement by way of substantive imprisonment.

Conclusion: The notice was sufficient, and the enhancement to imprisonment was not without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court had power to review or alter its own signed judgment in criminal appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 imposes a general prohibition on any court altering or reviewing its signed judgment except to correct a clerical error, subject only to the statutory exceptions. Section 424 regulates the form and content of judgments of appellate courts other than the High Court, while Section 430 deals with finality of appellate judgments, and neither provision confers a power of review. Section 561A preserves inherent powers only to the extent they are not inconsistent with express provisions of the Code; it cannot be used to create a power of review where the Code forbids it. The Court therefore rejected the view that the High Court could recall and revise its earlier judgment merely under inherent powers or under the criminal procedure provisions relied upon by the respondents.

Conclusion: The High Court had no power to review or alter its own judgment in the manner attempted.

Final Conclusion: The order of review was unsustainable, and the State's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to do what the Criminal Procedure Code expressly prohibits, and a notice calling upon an accused to show cause against enhancement of sentence is broad enough to support enhancement to substantive imprisonment where the notice is general and not limited to fine.

---