Can a High Court, purporting to correct a clerical error under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, convert a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to one under Section 304 Part II?

No. Where the earlier judgment rejected the appellants' contentions and confirmed the conviction under Section 302, a later order that changes the entire reasoning, finds the incident to be the result of sudden provocation in the heat of a moment and converts the conviction to Section 304 Part II is an alteration of the judgment, not the correction of a clerical error. The procedure so adopted is totally untenable.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.362 — s.482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.304 Part II — Alteration of a signed judgment — Clerical or arithmetical error — Inherent power — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.362 — Signed judgment — No alteration or review permitted — Held: Once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it is not allowed to alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The prohibition rests on the plain and unambigious words of the provision and binds a High Court equally. (¶10) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.362 — Clerical error — Accidental slip, apparent on record — Held further: A clerical or arithmetical error is one occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the court, representing that which the court never intended to say. It must be apparent on the face of the record and must not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. (¶16) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.304 Part II — Conviction converted on a correction application — Review, not correction — Held further: A High Court that has rejected the appellants' contentions and confirmed a conviction under Section 302 cannot afterwards change that entire reasoning and find sudden provocation in the heat of a moment. Converting the conviction to Section 304 Part II by such an order is a review, and the procedure adopted is totally untenable. (¶14, 15) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — s.362 — Inherent power — Cannot do what the Code prohibits — Held further: The inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code, and the saving in Section 362 does not contemplate it. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the accused directed to undergo the remaining period of sentence. (¶17, 21)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAMYASH @ LAL BAHADUR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India