HEMENDRA NATH MAZUMDAR Vs. ARUP KUMAR BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the instant application for modification/review of the judgment passed by this court in Criminal Revision No. 113/92 on 27.7.94. The ground for filing the application is that when the petitioner applied for certified copy after the judgment was passed no copy was supplied to him as the judgment was not signed. This plea is perhaps taken to avoid the statutory provision u/s 362 CrPC which reads as follows:

(2.) In Motilal-Vs-State of MP (AIR 1994 SC 1544) the Apex Court held that the High Court has no jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC to alter its earlier judgement. Law provides that once High Court has passed its judgment and signed it, it becomes functus officio and neither the Judge, who passed the judgement nor any other Bench of High Court has any power to review, reconsider or alter it except for correcting clerical error. No application u/s 482 CrPC for review/modification of judgment passed by High Court is maintainable.

(3.) In this application for further hearing for clarification/modification of the order dictated in the court the counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the dictation was complete and was ready to be signed, the petitioner has filed the application for further hearing and after that to take modified view in the case. From enquiry it was disclosed that the oral judgement dictated in the court was not signed but it was typed and ready for signature. In that view of the matter it is held that as the judgment was not signed, a further hearing can be given to the petitioner for the end of justice and accordingly I do so.