Can a Magistrate change/amend a wrong order pronounced by him.

Dear Mr. Srinivas

Replying another query today, I had opined  that if there is a procedural error in any order of the judical/quasi judicial authority, it can be reviewed. I was going through a recent judgment Rabinder Singh v Financial Commissioner  of Supreme Court decided on14-5-08, where this issue has been discussed and earlier case laws  of Grindlays Bank etc has also been discussed in this jusgment. Please spend some time reading the same and get your answer. 

Courts do not have powers to review their own orders: SC

New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has said that courts do not have any inherent powers to review their own order or judgement, except for the purpose of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.

Quoting Section 362 of the CrPC, the apex court said the procedural code "expressly provides that no court which has signed its judgement or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical error."

The only option for an aggrieved person is to file a fresh petition citing additional or fresh grounds to seek a review of the said order or judgement, a bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P Sathasivam said.

The apex court made the observation while quashing a Madras High Court order directing CBI inquiry into allegations of smuggling in the State's forest department and the reported torture of the complainant K V Rajendran by local Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for exposing the alleged scandal.

In the instant case, Rajendran had initially filed a petition for a CBI inquiry into the allegations which was disposed off by the High Court in 1998 saying that there was no need for a probe by the Central investigating agency.

However, in 2002, Rajendran filed an interlocutory application again seeking a CBI probe into the allegations which were conceded by the High Court by invoking its powers under Section 482 CrPC.

https://www.hinduonnet.com

I concur with the view of atma, and I am also of the view that such order should be submitted to the High Court for correcting the wrong orderas as no wroung order should be allowed to remain in record. The problem is, Is there any honest and courageous Magistrate in the country to submit his wroung order to the High Court for correcting his wrong Order?

Lot of  corrupted majistrates in the country !

HC: Don't refer civil nature for police investigation

Courtesy:https://www.thehindu.com

Mr. Justice Regupathi said some judicial magistrates, in collusion with complainant bankers/financial institutions, were entertaining complaints relating to matters of civil nature and passed orders, under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., for police investigation to the undue benefit of financial institutions. In some instances, they were entertaining similar complaints under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. 

The judge said all records, including vigilance reports, might be placed before the Chief Justice for taking appropriate departmental action against the magistrates, in particular III, X, XVII and XVIII Metropolitan Magistrates, Chennai, and Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore and Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.



---------------------------------------------------------------

Calcutta High Court judge faces the sack (Lead)

September 8th, 2008



New Delhi, Sep 8 (IANS): In only the second case of its kind, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan has recommended removal of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court for “criminal misappropriation” of over Rs.58 million of the high court’s funds.”I write this to recommend that the proceedings contemplated by Article 217 (1) read with Article 124 (4) of the constitution be initiated for removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, judge, Calcutta High Court,” Chief Justice Balakrishnan wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Aug 4.



The recommendation was made after Justice Sen ignored an advice by the apex court’s collegium, headed by the chief justice and including two senior most judges, Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice Ashok Bhan, to either resign or retire voluntarily by April 2, 2008.



The apex court collegium had Feb 2 directed Justice Sen to resign after hearing him, but he on March 26 declined to do so.



He faces the charge of misappropriating the high court’s funds when he was practising as a lawyer - years before he became a judge at the same court in December 2003.



As per the chief justice letter to the prime minister, Justice Sen had misappropriated the court funds, accruing to it as suit properties, on two occasions - first in 1984 and then again in 1997, while acting as special officer appointed by the court to take charge of the suit properties and to keep them in his safe custody.



Adjudicating a lawsuit between two state firms, Steel Authority of India Limited and Shipping Corporation of India Limited, the high court had in April 1984 appointed Sen as the court’s receiver to take charge of some goods imported by SAIL through SCIL, but subsequently rejected by it on being found of inferior quality.



The high court had directed him to sell the suit property and keep the sale proceeds with him in a separate bank account in safe custody after deducting five percent of the proceeds as his remunerations.



Justice Sen deposited the entire amount of Rs.33.22 million in two separate banks in Kolkata, but gradually withdrew all the money from them for his personal use.



Later in 1997, acting as a special officer of the high court in a case involving payment of Rs.70 million to the workers of a Kolkata-based ceiling fan manufacturing firm, which had gone bankrupt, Justice Sen had deposited the sum in another bank account.



But even out of this sum, he misappropriated Rs.25 million, which he invested in a private firm, Lynx India Ltd that too later become bankrupt.



Despite these cases of criminal misappropriation of huge funds by him, Justice Sen was appointed judge of the high court.



The misappropriation of the funds was detected in 2006 after SAIL demanded the sale proceeds of the suit property received by him.



But Justice Sen chose to ignore the SAIL demand, following which the state firm moved the high court in 2002.



It was during the adjudication of SAIL’s new lawsuit that the misappropriation was unearthed.



Though Justice Sen never cooperated with the court, he eventually returned Rs.57.85 million to it following its order to return Rs.52.46 million, including the interest on Rs.33.22 million of sale proceeds of the SAIL suit property.



As some sections of the media in Kolkata reported the matter, the then chief justice of the Calcutta High Court withdrew judicial work from Justice Sen and wrote to then chief justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal in November 2006, apprising him of his conduct.



After examining the high court chief justice’s report, Chief Justice Balakrishnan in November 2007 ordered a “deeper probe” into the matter and constituted a three-member panel, comprising Madras High Court Chief Justice A.P. Shah, Madhya Pradesh High Court Chief Justice A.K. Patnaik and Rajasthan High Court Justice R.M. Lodha.



The chief justice recommended Justice Sen’s sacking, after the judicial panel indicted him for criminal misappropriation of court funds and criminal breach of trust.



The panel in its report said: “Justice Sen did not have an honest intention right from the year 1993 since he mixed the money received as a court’s officer with his personal money and converted the court’s fund to his own use.”



Courtesy: https://www.thaindian.com

dear mr srinivas

in criminal law  there is almost negligible space for the ammendment/change in orders after pronounciation,revision is the only option,though few months back i came across a ruling from allbd high court ,discussing the scope of ammendment shall give u the details for the same tmorow

sachin naagar

advocate

9818686938

noida

dear mr srinivas, the criminal courts cannot correct or review their own judgements. it is prohibited under sec 362 Cr.P.C. As rightly pointed out by mr harbajan, any technical or typographical error can be rectified but the judgment cannot be altered.