Court not to after judgement
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with court not to after judgement. 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. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Section 362, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 403 Court not to alter judgment Close, with changes 79%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 2000-11-01 DATE VERIFIED. Thomas/Sethi. After a 482 petition is finally disposed of, the High Court cannot review or issue fresh directions on a miscellaneous petition. CrPC 362: once a judgment or final order is signed the court is functus officio except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error; s.482 cannot cloak a review. Impugned 30.4.1999 and 21.7.1999 orders quashed. Map crpc 362 only. Do not successor-map bnss 403 (mapping.csv only close 0.7859).
On this section: Once a criminal court signs its judgment or final order it is functus officio under s.362 except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error; s.482 cannot cloak a review (Hari Singh Mann).
-
Vishnu Agarwal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits courts from altering or reviewing final orders except for clerical or arithmetical errors, cannot be applied in a rigid, overly technical manner to defeat the ends of justice. Where an order is recalled (as opposed to reviewed) because a party was denied opportunity of hearing due to administrative error or human mistake in listing, such recall is permissible and does not violate Section 362. The distinction between recall and review is critical: recall rescinds an order without examining merits when hearing was denied, while review examines merits for errors. Courts must balance adherence to procedural law with the paramount principle of ensuring substantial justice, and procedural accidents causing denial of hearing should not bar the pursuit of justice.
On this section: Court clarified that Section 362 prohibits alteration or review of final orders except for clerical or arithmetical errors, but this cannot be applied rigidly to defeat justice. The section must be read to permit recall when a party is denied hearing due to administrative error.
-
Ranvir Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second complaint on the same cause of action and between the same parties is legally maintainable even after dismissal of an earlier complaint, provided the earlier complaint was dismissed not on merits following inquiry under Section 202-203 CrPC, but on account of procedural default by the complainant such as failure to pay process fees. The bar to entertaining a second complaint applies only when the first complaint has been dismissed on merits after a full inquiry by the Magistrate, except in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 SC 876), namely: (i) where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record; (ii) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint; (iii) where it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false; or (iv) where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceeding have been adduced. When a complaint is dismissed merely for procedural default and not on merits, a fresh complaint on the same facts is permissible as it is a different action from attempting to recall or review the earlier order of dismissal, which is prohibited under Section 362 CrPC.
On this section: Court cannot alter or review its judgment; interpreted to mean court cannot recall earlier dismissal order, but this does not bar fresh complaint filing
-
Sunil Kumar vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Economic offences under the Essential Commodities Act, involving unauthorized sale of essential commodities to exploit public, cannot be granted relief under Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C. as such crimes are calculated, profit-motivated, and serious threats to social security. Additionally, once a court pronounces judgment and becomes functus officio under Section 362 Cr.P.C., it has no power to reconsider or modify judgment except for clerical errors. A party pursuing repeated petitions challenging the same orders after losing in multiple forums constitutes abuse of judicial process and should be dismissed with costs.
On this section: Complete embargo on criminal courts to reconsider any case after delivery of judgment as court becomes functus officio. Applied to reject High Court's power to modify sentence in modification petition.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In review petitions arising from cases where death penalty has been awarded, a limited oral hearing of a maximum of thirty minutes per side in open Court is mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution as a just, fair and reasonable procedure, as a distinct exception to the general rule established in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court. This exception is justified because: (1) death penalty is irreversible and results in deprivation of the most fundamental right to life; (2) different judicially trained minds applying the 'rarest of rare' sentencing doctrine can reach diametrically opposite conclusions on identical facts; and (3) even a remote chance of deviating from an original decision in a death sentence case justifies oral hearing as part of a 'reasonable procedure' under Article 21. All cases in which death sentence has been awarded by the High Court shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges under Supreme Court Rules 2013 Order VI Rule 3.
On this section: Review of orders - ordinarily no review provided in criminal proceedings except at Supreme Court level
-
Feroz Ahmad Zargar vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal court does not have inherent jurisdiction to recall or review its own final orders. Once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it cannot alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors as provided in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a party is aggrieved by a trial court order, the proper remedy is to challenge it before a superior forum (High Court), not to seek recall from the trial court itself. The fact that a judgment relied upon by the trial court has been stayed by a higher court does not confer upon the trial court the power to review its own orders.
On this section: Section 362 prohibits courts from altering or reviewing their judgment or final order after signing, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. This provision was the cornerstone of the court's reasoning that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to recall its own orders.
-
Dinesh Chander Sharma vs State of Hp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A petition challenging the same orders that were previously challenged in an earlier petition before the High Court is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC. The finality doctrine enshrined in Sections 362 and 393 CrPC precludes a court from re-opening and re-adjudicating orders that have already been disposed of. Permission to file fresh proceedings for 'other grievances' does not extend to re-challenging orders that were the subject matter of a previous petition.
On this section: Court not to alter judgment - Once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it shall not alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Applied to hold that the present petition is not maintainable as it seeks to challenge orders already disposed of.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The High Court was wholly wrong in altering the judgment pronounced by them disposing of the criminal appeals. That was clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What was worse, the High Court acted in purported exercise of the power to correct clerical mistakes when in fact there was none. The conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 was perfectly correct and the conviction had been rightly affirmed by the High Court in the …
-
… At the outset, this Court finds it pertinent to state that the embargo contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the Court from altering or reviewing its judgement or final order disposing of the case, is inapplicable to an Order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Saving Clause contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. entails that the rigour of the provision is relaxed in two conditions, i.e. save as otherwise provided by (i) the Code of Criminal Procedure or (ii) any other law for the time being in force. 5. In Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 172, the Supreme Court had …
Questions about Section 362
What have the courts held on Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (01 Nov 2000) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Once a criminal court signs its judgment or final order it is functus officio under s.362 except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error; s.482 cannot cloak a review (Hari Singh Mann). Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 362, section 362 CRPC, section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (01 Nov 2000).
What should I read with Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 403 (Court not to alter judgment), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 362, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.