Skip to content


Sashibhusan Tripathy and anr. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 274 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1984(II)OLR724
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 133 and 362
AppellantSashibhusan Tripathy and anr.
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Mohapatra, B. Panda, A.K. Patnaik, Md. Fahim and P. Mohanty
Respondent AdvocateN.C. Panigrahi, Addl. Govt. Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredRankanidhi Sahu and Ors. v. Pratap Ch. Das and Ors.
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....learned additional government advocate.2. the order dropping a proceeding under section 133 of the code of criminal procedure which is a final order within the meaning of section 362 of the same code has been reviewed and the proceeding has been revived illegally on an application made for it. as provided in section 362 of the code, save as otherwise, provided by the 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. a clerical of arithmetical error in an order occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the court. it represents that which the court never intended to say. it is an error apparent on the face of the record.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. I have heard Mr. Mohapatra for the petitioners and Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, the learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The order dropping a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a final order within the meaning of Section 362 of the same Code has been reviewed and the proceeding has been revived illegally on an application made for it. As provided in Section 362 of the Code, save as otherwise, provided by the 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. A clerical of arithmetical error in an order occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the Court. It represents that which the Court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend, upon its discovery on argument of disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. (See A.I.R. 1965 S. C. 1047--Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr. and A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 736 : 1981 Cr. L. J. 296--Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyarelal and Anr.). No case can be revived by reviewing the final judgment or order. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in 1983 Cuttack Law Reports (Criminal) 185 Ranka Sahu alias Rankanidhi Sahu and Ors. v. Pratap Ch. Das and Ors.

3. I would allow the revision and quash the impugned order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //