Can Criminal Courts Review Judgments Beyond Clerical or Arithmetical Errors?

The power of courts to revisit their own judgments is a subject of significant importance in criminal law. Unlike civil courts, which are expressly vested with review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), criminal courts operate under strict limitations. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr. (2025) reiterates and clarifies the extent of this power under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which is now paralleled by Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

This article explores the jurisprudence surrounding this issue, the statutory bar under Section 362 CrPC, the exceptions recognised by the courts, and the implications of the 2025 decision.

Statutory Framework: Section 362 CrPC/Section 403 BNSS

Section 362 CrPC/Section 403 BNSS provides:

“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 legislative intent is clear: criminal courts, once they have signed and pronounced a judgment, become functus officio—they lose jurisdiction over the matter. Only two narrow relaxations exist:

• Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors; and
• Where power to review is expressly conferred by CrPC (BNSS) or another law in force.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from a business venture between the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group for developing a resort project in Himachal Pradesh. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed in 2005, followed by an agreement in 2006 transferring 51% shareholding in Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (MRPL) to Vikram Bakshi of the Bakshi Group.

Subsequent disputes led to multiple proceedings before the Company Law Board (CLB) under the Companies Act, 1956. Allegations surfaced that the Bakshi Group had forged minutes of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) dated 30.09.2006 to justify appointments of directors. This prompted applications under Section 340 CrPC for perjury proceedings.

The matter reached the Delhi High Court, which initially (13.08.2020) declined to interfere, noting that the CLB (later NCLT) was seized of the matter. However, on an application claiming that the Company Petition had been withdrawn, the High Court recalled its earlier order on 05.05.2021.

This recall order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Bakshi Group, raising the issue whether a criminal court can recall or review its judgment beyond clerical or arithmetical corrections under Section 362 CrPC.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling

In Vikram Bakshi (2025), the Delhi High Court had recalled its earlier judgment in a matter arising under Section 340 CrPC (perjury proceedings), citing new factual developments. The Supreme Court struck down this recall, holding it impermissible under Section 362 CrPC.

Key Findings:

Absolute Bar on Substantive Review

• Criminal courts cannot alter or review their judgments on the merits once pronounced. The bar under Section 362 is to be applied strictly.

Distinction Between Procedural and Substantive Review

• Procedural review (e.g., when a judgment is passed without hearing a necessary party, due to fraud, or under mistake) may be permissible.
• Substantive review (reconsideration on merits) is barred.

Exceptional Circumstances Where Recall May Be Allowed.

• Lack of inherent jurisdiction in the original order.
• Fraud or collusion upon the court.
• Mistake of the court causing prejudice.
• Non-service of a necessary party.
• Death of a party whose estate remained unrepresented.

Importantly, these grounds must not have been available at the time of the original proceedings.

No Circumvention Through CPC or Inherent Powers

• Filing a review under Order XLVII CPC or invoking Section 482 CrPC cannot override Section 362’s embargo.

Application to Section 340 CrPC Proceedings

• Even though proceedings under Section 340 CrPC (regarding perjury) are preliminary in nature, they are criminal in substance, as they may lead to prosecution under the Penal Code. Therefore, they fall squarely within Section 362.

Important Precedents Cited

The Court consolidated earlier jurisprudence:

1. State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair (2001) 4 SCC 752 – CrPC does not permit review in appellate, revisional, or original jurisdiction.
2. Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (2001) 1 SCC 169 – Once a matter is finally disposed of, the court becomes functus officio.
3. Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172 – Section 482 cannot be used to bypass Section 362.
4. Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb (1999) 4 SCC 396 – Limited recall permissible in cases of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or mistake of court.
5. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria (2022) – “Procedural review” allowed, but not “substantive review.”

Key Highlights of the Decision

Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih stated:

A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarize would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force.

As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this, despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a “procedural review” that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review” where the bar as contained in Section “362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu.

Analysis: Why the High Court’s Recall Was Set Aside

The Delhi High Court had recalled its earlier judgment based on the claim that a Company Petition before the NCLT had been withdrawn. However:

• This fact was already available but not disclosed at the original hearing.
• The omission amounted to misrepresentation by the party seeking review.
• The recall was thus a substantive review disguised as procedural correction, falling foul of Section 362 CrPC.

The Supreme Court condemned this as an attempt to undermine judicial finality and restored the bar against such recalls

Implications of the Judgment

1. Finality of Criminal Proceedings: Ensures stability in the criminal justice system by preventing endless litigation through review petitions.
2. Caution Against Abuse: Litigants cannot withhold facts during hearings and later seek recall.
3. Clarity for High Courts: Even proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature; thus, review powers remain limited.
4. Balance Between Justice and Finality: By recognising rare exceptions (fraud, lack of jurisdiction, etc.), the Court balances justice with the need for finality.

Conclusion

To answer the core question: Criminal courts do not have the power to recall or review judgments beyond clerical or arithmetical errors, except in rare, narrowly defined situations such as fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural mistakes. The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla reaffirms this principle and underscores the sanctity of judicial finality.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder that while procedural fairness must be upheld, the criminal justice system cannot permit perpetual re-litigation under the guise of “recall.”

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams