In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!“modifying the entire reasoning in a criminal judgment cannot be classified as a mere clerical or arithmetical correction under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)”
The Apex Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision that had revised its original judgment through a Criminal Miscellaneous Correction Application filed by the accused persons.
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that
“modifying the entire reasoning in a criminal judgment cannot be classified as a mere clerical or arithmetical correction under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)”
The Apex Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision that had revised its original judgment through a Criminal Miscellaneous Correction Application filed by the accused persons.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose out of a 2012 criminal complaint wherein the appellant accused several individuals of physically and verbally assaulting him and his family, stemming from a long-standing enmity. The incident allegedly involved the use of deadly weapons, leading to grievous injuries. Consequently, an FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
Subsequently, after the death of the appellant’s father, Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was added to the charges. The Trial Court convicted the accused, and upon appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the convictions.
However, the accused later filed a Correction Application under the guise of seeking clarification of the judgment. Shockingly, the High Court allowed the application and substantially modified its previous order, effectively altering the basis of conviction.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Man Jailed for Over 5 Years Without Trial in UP Drugs Case
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The matter was taken to the Supreme Court through criminal appeals filed by the complainant. A two-judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih strongly disapproved of the High Court’s approach.
The Bench observed:
“It could thus clearly be seen that this Court had observed that the similar exercise undertaken by the High Court in that case was in contravention of the provisions of Section 362 of CrPC… We fail to understand as to how the High Court, in the present case also, in spite of the plain and unambiguous words used in the provisions of Section 362 CrPC, has committed such an error.”
Legal Finding
The Supreme Court highlighted the restrictive scope of Section 362 CrPC, which categorically bars any court from altering or reviewing its final judgment once it is signed, except for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes.
The Apex Court noted that
“while the High Court had claimed the modification was only a clerical correction, a comparison of both versions of the judgment revealed a substantial change in judicial reasoning, which is impermissible”
The Court emphasized:
“Even upon a plain reading of Section 362 CrPC, the procedure adopted by the High Court is wholly untenable… No court can alter or review its judgment under the guise of correcting clerical errors when it results in substantive changes.”
Final Order and Directions
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and quashed the modified judgment of the High Court. The Court restored the original conviction and directed the accused persons, if they had not already completed their sentence, to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, within four weeks of the judgment.
“The accused… are directed to surrender… and undergo the remaining period of sentence,” the Court ordered.
Case Title & Appearances
- Case Title: Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Etc. Etc.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 544
For the Appellant: Advocates Narender Singh Yadav, Smita Singh Deo, Surjeet Singh, Amardeep Gaur, NBV Srinivasa Reddy, and Vishal Tiwari, led by AOR Ashutosh Yadav.
For the Respondents: AORs Vishnu Shankar Jain and Nanita Sharma, assisted by Advocates Shaurya Krishna, Sushil Balwada, Nagendra Singh, Sanjay Gupta, and others.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
