Question

As per section 362 of Cr. P.C.(equivalent to section 403 of BNSS 2023), a criminal court has power to review or alter its own judgment or order only under the following circumstances.

• A. If there is an error as to the question of fact.
• B. If there is an error as to the question of law.
• C. If there is/are clerical and arithmetical errors.
• D. If the judgment or order is rendered per in curium.
• A. A procedural review is exercised when a higher court finds an error in interpretation, while a substantive review is limited to correcting factual inaccuracies within the same court.
• B. A procedural review is available only in appellate courts, whereas a substantive review may be conducted by the original court that issued in court
• C. A procedural review is inherent or implied in a court to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it. However, a substantive review is when error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record.
• D. A procedural review involves correcting errors of judgement made after hearing the parties while a substantive review is confined to omissions in recording of legal reasoning.
• A. Ex debito justitiae, to correct a factual error not brought to its notice earlier.
• B. Inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court.
• C. The power of a criminal court to conduct a "substantive review" on the merits of the case.
• D. The binding nature of the Supreme Court's earlier Judgment which mandated a decision on the perjury application.
• A. Such power is expressly conferred upon court by law
• B. The court passing such a judgement or order lacked inherent jurisdiction to do so
• C. Fact relating to non-serving of necessary party being non-represented, not brought to notice of court while passing such judgment or order
• D. A subsequent judicial precedent renders the earlier judgment legally untenable
• A. Only I is correct
• B. Only II is correct
• C. Both I and II are correct
• D. Both I and II are incorrect

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the specific exception mentioned in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. that allows a criminal court to alter its own judgment.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The provided passage directly answers this question. It summarizes the law under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and states: "...the criminal courts... are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error...".
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, itself reads: "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."
Options (A), (B), and (D) represent errors of substance (fact, law, or overlooking a binding precedent), which fall under the category of substantive review. Section 362 explicitly bars such reviews and only permits the correction of minor, accidental slips, i.e., clerical and arithmetical errors.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The only circumstance explicitly mentioned in Section 362 Cr.P.C. for altering a judgment is to correct clerical and arithmetical errors.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the correct distinction between "procedural review" and "substantive review" in the context of criminal courts' power to recall their orders.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage states that the bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to a "procedural review" but does apply to a "substantive review".


Procedural Review: This refers to the power of a court to recall an order that was passed due to a procedural defect, mistake, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Examples include an order passed against a party who was not served with notice, or an order passed under a clear misapprehension of facts (e.g., believing a party was absent when they were present). This power is considered inherent in the court to correct its own procedural mistakes.
Substantive Review: This involves a re-examination of the merits of the case, either on facts or on law. It means the court is asked to change its mind about the conclusion it reached after a full hearing. This is what Section 362 strictly prohibits.
Let's analyze the options:

(A) and (B) are incorrect descriptions of the distinction and the courts where they apply.
(C) accurately captures this difference. It correctly identifies procedural review as an inherent power to correct orders passed under misapprehension and substantive review as dealing with errors of law on the merits, which is barred.
(D) provides a confusing and inaccurate distinction.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The distinction lies in the nature of the error. Procedural review corrects errors in the process of reaching a decision, while substantive review seeks to correct the decision itself. Option (C) best describes this.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks about the legal power or principle that the High Court likely invoked to justify recalling its own judgment, a power the Supreme Court later found to be impermissible.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage provides a strong clue. It states: "Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar." This indicates that the argument for review was likely based on the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This section grants High Courts inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. Litigants often invoke this section to seek recall of orders, arguing that the order's continuance would amount to an abuse of process. The Supreme Court's observation clarifies that this inherent power, though wide, cannot be used to override the specific and explicit bar against substantive review contained in Section 362.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The High Court would have claimed its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to justify its action, a justification the Supreme Court rejected as being constrained by the bar in Section 362.

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify which of the given options is NOT a valid exception to the general bar on review under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Jurisprudence has carved out very narrow exceptions to the absolute bar in Section 362. These are generally limited to procedural and jurisdictional errors. Let's analyze the options:

(A) Such power is expressly conferred upon court by law: This is an explicit exception mentioned in Section 362 itself ("Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law..."). An example is correcting clerical errors. So, this IS an exception.
(B) The court passing such a judgement or order lacked inherent jurisdiction: An order passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity (*coram non judice*). The court has the power to recall such a void order. This IS a recognized exception.
(C) Fact relating to non-serving of necessary party being non-represented...: This is a classic example of a violation of the principles of natural justice (*audi alteram partem*). An order passed without hearing a necessary party is procedurally flawed, and the court can recall it. This IS a recognized exception (procedural review).
(D) A subsequent judicial precedent renders the earlier judgment legally untenable: This would require the court to re-examine the merits of its decision based on a later change or clarification in the law. This is a substantive review of a perceived legal error. This is precisely what Section 362 prohibits. A final judgment cannot be reopened simply because the law is later interpreted differently by a higher court.
Step 3: Final Answer:
A court cannot review its final judgment because a subsequent precedent has changed the legal landscape. This is not a valid exception to the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question presents two statements about the conditions for using the exceptional power to recall a criminal judgment and asks which statement(s) is/are correct.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze each statement:

Statement I: "The exceptions are exercisable only if a ground that is raised was not available or existent at the time of original proceedings before the Court". This is incorrect. The main grounds for recall, like lack of jurisdiction or non-service of a party, are defects that {did exist} at the time of the original proceedings. The very problem is that the court passed an order despite an existing jurisdictional defect or a procedural violation. This statement reflects a condition for review in civil cases (discovery of new and important matter), which is not applicable here.
Statement II: "The said power cannot be invoked as a means to circumvent the finality of the judicial process or mistakes and/or errors in the decision which are attributable to a conscious omission by the parties." This statement is correct. The power to recall is not a back door for an appeal or a chance to re-argue points that were, or could have been, argued. It is meant to correct fundamental errors that vitiate the proceedings, not to save parties from their own negligence or to correct errors of judgment made after a full hearing. The finality of judgments (*functus officio*) is a core principle that these narrow exceptions do not seek to undermine wholesale.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Statement I is incorrect, and Statement II is correct. Therefore, the correct option is (B).