Manmohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Sec. 561 -A read with Sec. 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Jaswant Singh complainant and arises out of an order passed by this Court on 28th August, 1973. In this case Jit Singh and others were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, under Ss. 325/34 and 367/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. In appeal to this Court (Criminal Appeal No. 81 of, 1971), the conviction of the convicts was maintained but their sentence was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,500 each under Sec. 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) On behalf of, the complainant -petitioner, Jaswant Singh who was the injured person in this case, it is urged that it was also ordered at the time of dictation of, the judgment that the fine, if realised, was to be paid to the complainant but some now the order did not contain this direction. In view of this, it is prayed that the clerical error may be rectified.
(3.) Sec. 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a criminal Court to rectify any clerical error or omission. Even otherwise under Sec. 561 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code there is inherent power in the High Court to rectify and amend accidental and inadvertent errors in the judgment in order to advance the interests of justice. The powers of the High Court under Sec. 561 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code were recently considered by this Court in Dal Singh and others v/s. State : AIR 1970 P&H 32 and on a consideration of the entire case law on the subject, it was held as under : - - We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court in its inherent powers is fully empowered to revoke, review, or recall and alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and to rehear the same. It is to be reiterated that the circumstances in which these powers can be exercised necessarily would be exceptional ones which would lead the Court to review that the exercise of the same is necessary to conform to the three conditions mentioned in Sec. 561 -A of the Code. The ultima ratio of judicial process undoubtedly resides in the highest tribunal of the land and if the finality in a criminal judgment envisaged in Sec. 369 Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be attached to the High Court as well, its supremacy cannot be preserved. In the authorities as also the relevant statutory provisions, both of which have been fully and elaborately discussed by Sandhawalia, J., the power of the High Court to rectify and amend accidental and inadvertent errors is maintained. While the order of judgment of an original Court or even a Court of appeal can be set right if so needed by a superior tribunal, the inherent powers alone can enable a High Court to do like wise. Only the clearest language of a statute can deprive the High Court of this useful and necessary adjunct of judicial power. In my opinion, the facts of the present case clearly bring it within the purview of the view enunciated in the above authority and it is ordered in the interest of justice that the judgment dated 28th August, 1973 can be corrected, so that it contains a direction that the fine, if realised, be paid to Jaswant Singh complainant.;