Section 403, BNSS 2023

Save as otherwise provided by this Sanhita 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.

📖 Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169

Facts: A High Court, having disposed of a criminal matter by a final order, entertained a further application in the same matter and passed orders altering the position it had earlier taken. The question was whether it had power to do so.

Held: The Supreme Court held that section 362 of the Code — the provision corresponding to section 403 — mandates that no Court, after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, and that the bar applies to the High Court as much as to any other criminal court. The Court held that the inherent power cannot be invoked to alter or review such an order: the inherent jurisdiction is saved for the purposes the section names, and cannot be exercised to do what an express provision prohibits. It held that an application asking a court to reconsider its own final order in a criminal matter is not maintainable, whatever it may be called, and that a court which entertains one acts without jurisdiction. The Court set aside the subsequent orders, observing that the finality which the provision secures is essential to the administration of criminal justice.

Ratio: No Court, after signing its judgment or final order, shall alter or review it, and the bar applies to the High Court as much as to any other. The inherent power cannot be invoked to do what an express provision prohibits.

📖 Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437

Facts: A High Court, having declined to quash a complaint, entertained a second petition in the same matter and quashed it, purporting to act under its inherent jurisdiction. The correctness of that course fell to be examined.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override an express bar provided in law, and that where the Code contains a specific provision prohibiting a course, the inherent power cannot be used to take that very course. The Court held that the provision barring alteration or review of a final order is such an express bar, and that the High Court, having already decided the matter by a final order, could not reconsider it under the guise of the inherent power. It held that the inherent jurisdiction exists to supplement the provisions of the Code where they are silent, and not to supplant them where they have spoken: a power expressly denied cannot be impliedly restored. The Court set aside the second order, holding that it had been passed without jurisdiction.

Ratio: The inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to override an express bar in the law. It exists to supplement the Code where it is silent, not to supplant it where it has spoken, and a power expressly denied cannot be impliedly restored.

⚠ What is permitted, and what is not

Permitted: correcting a clerical or arithmetical error; recalling an order obtained by fraud on the Court; and acting where the order was passed without jurisdiction — since an order which is a nullity is not an order the section protects.

Not permitted: reconsidering the merits; hearing fresh argument; admitting material that was available and not produced; or revisiting a conclusion the Court now thinks mistaken.

The bar applies to the High Court too. Section 403 is not confined to subordinate courts, and an application asking a High Court to review its own final criminal order is not maintainable, whatever it is called.

And the reason is finality. A criminal proceeding must end. A system in which any court could be asked to reconsider its own final order would give the party with the greatest stamina an advantage the law does not intend him to have.

The position stated shortly

1. A criminal court has no power of review. Section 403 forbids a Court, once it has signed its judgment or final order, from altering or reviewing it.

2. The only exception is to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

3. Revision is different in kind: it is a power of a superior court over the record of an inferior one, under section 438.

4. Where an order is said to be wrong, the remedy is to go upwards — by appeal or revision — and never to ask the same court to reconsider.

5. The bar applies to the High Court as much as to any other criminal court: Hari Singh Mann.

6. The inherent power cannot be invoked to alter or review a final order — it is saved, not conferred, and cannot do what an express provision prohibits.

7. The inherent jurisdiction exists to supplement the Sanhita where it is silent, not to supplant it where it has spoken: Simrikhia.

8. A power expressly denied cannot be impliedly restored, and a court entertaining such an application acts without jurisdiction.

9. Permitted: correcting a clerical or arithmetical error; recalling an order obtained by fraud; acting where the order was a nullity.

10. Not permitted: reconsidering the merits, hearing fresh argument, or admitting material that was available and not produced.