Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could entertain an application styled as one for clarification and, in substance, review or alter its earlier final criminal order by invoking inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Analysis: Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a court from altering or reviewing a signed judgment or final order, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The relief sought was not a correction of any accidental slip, mistake in writing, or error in calculation, but a substantive declaration that the earlier restoration order did not bind the applicant and did not affect her possession. Such relief amounted to reopening the final order on merits. The saving of inherent power under Section 482 does not authorise a court to do what the Code expressly prohibits, and the saving clause in Section 362 applies only where some other provision of the Code or other law expressly permits alteration or review.
Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, and the refusal to do so was correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The inherent power of a criminal court cannot be used to review or alter a final order where the Code expressly prohibits such review, except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.