Final criminal orders cannot be reviewed later, and sanction protection under Panchayat law ends after retirement.

Section 362 CrPC bars alteration or review of a signed final criminal order, save for clerical or arithmetical correction; once the High Court's earlier quashing request had attained finality, it became functus officio and could not reopen the matter by a later order. The sanction provision in Section 122(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Act applies only to a person who is presently the President, Executive Authority, or a member of a Panchayat acting in discharge of official duty; after retirement, that condition is not met, so no previous sanction was required and the prosecution could proceed. The impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could, by a subsequent order, reverse its earlier final order and quash the criminal proceeding; and (ii) whether previous sanction was required for prosecution under Section 122(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Act after the accused had retired from service.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could, by a subsequent order, reverse its earlier final order and quash the criminal proceeding.

Analysis: Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prohibits alteration or review of a signed judgment or final order disposing of a case, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Once the earlier order rejecting quashing had attained finality, the High Court had become functus officio in relation to that order and could not reopen the matter by treating the later order as a mere clarification.

Conclusion: The subsequent order amounted to an impermissible review and was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether previous sanction was required for prosecution under Section 122(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Act after the accused had retired from service.

Analysis: The sanction provision applies only when the person accused is the President, Executive Authority, or a member of a Panchayat and the offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. The language of the provision does not extend protection to a person who has ceased to hold the office. Since the accused had retired, the condition precedent for sanction was not satisfied. The analogous provisions under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were distinguished on their wording and scope.

Conclusion: No previous sanction was required after retirement, and the prosecution could proceed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the criminal proceeding was not liable to be quashed for want of sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed final criminal order cannot be reviewed or altered except for clerical or arithmetical correction, and a statutory sanction clause limited to persons presently holding office does not protect a retired office-holder.

---