R2011 SC 1232 , 2011 (74 ) ACC 609 , II (2011 )CCR392 (SC ), 2011 CriLJ1744 , [2011 (3 )JCR49 (SC )], JT2011 (3 )SC 538 , 2011 (2 )KCCRSN172 , 2011 -4 -LW338 , 2011 -2 -LW(Crl)200 , 2011 (2 )RCR(Criminal)754 , 2011 (2 )SCALE690 , (2011 )14 SCC813 , [2011 ]3 SCR197 , 2011 (1 )UC592 , ,MANU/SC/0147/2011Markandey Katju#Gyan Sudha Misra#295SC3050Judgment/OrderAIC#AIR#Allahabad Criminal Cases#CCR#CriLJ#JCR#JT#KCCR (SN)#LW#LW(Criminal)#MANU#RCR (Criminal)#SCALE#SCC#SCR#UCSUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-2416810,17483,16939 -->

MANU/SC/0147/2011

True Court CopyTM EnglishUC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1323 of 2004 and 875 of 2006

Decided On: 23.02.2011

Appellants: Vishnu Agarwal
Vs.
Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra

ORDER

Crl. Appeal No. 1323 of 2004

1. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Crl. Appeal No. 875 of 2006

2. The Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Criminal Appeal No. 1323/2004

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

4. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 29.1.2004 in Criminal Revision No. 136/1998.

5. It appears that the aforesaid Criminal Revision was listed in the High Court on 2.9.2003. No one appeared on behalf of the Revisionist, though the Counsels for Respondents appeared. In these circumstances, the judgment was passed.

6. Subsequently, an application was moved for recall of the Order dated 2.9.2003 alleging that the case was shown in the computer list and not in the main list of the High Court, and hence, the learned Counsel for the Revisionist had not noted the case and hence he did not appear.

7. It often happens that sometimes a case is not noted by the Counsel or his clerk in the cause list, and hence, the Counsel does not appear. This is a human mistake and can happen to anyone. Hence, the High Court recalled the order dated 2.9.2003 and directed the case to be listed for fresh hearing. The aforesaid order recalling the order dated 2.9.2003 has been challenged before us in this appeal.

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa AIR 2001 SC 43. Para 10 of the said judgment states:

Section 362 of the Code mandates that 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. The Section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a