MITHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application (Cr. M. 1111 of 1976)t petitioner seeks review of the order dated 12th March, 1976,passed by me whereby Criminal Revision No. 178 of 1973 wasdismissed.

(2.) The review is sought on the ground that Shrimati Laxmi Devi,prosecutrix, after the dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition hadcompounded the offence under section 354 with the petitioner.

(3.) It may be noted here that the petitioner was tried by Shri S. M.Aggarwal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, New Delhi, on a chargeunder section 354, Indian Penal Code, under the provisions of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (herein called 'the old Code').Section 369 of the old Code envisaged that save as otherwise providedby that Code or by any other law for the time being in force or inthe case of a High Court, by the Letters Patent or other instrumentconstituting such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter. or review the same, except to correct a clericalerror. It is settled law that a judgment of the Criminal Court isfinal and on signing and pronouncing it the Court becomes junclusofficio. There is accordingly no power to review or alter a judgmentexcept for the purposes of correcting clerical errors. There couldbe no manner of doubt that the power to compound an offence canbe exercised during the pendency of the case. The Court becomesfunctus officio the moment the case is disposed of and that beingso it has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for compoundingan offence.