Question

As per section 362 of Cr. P.C.(equivalent to section 403 of BNSS 2023), a criminal court has power to review or alter its own judgment or order only under the following circumstances.

• A. If there is an error as to the question of fact.
• B. If there is an error as to the question of law.
• C. If there is/are clerical and arithmetical errors.
• D. If the judgment or order is rendered per in curium.
• A. A procedural review is exercised when a higher court finds an error in interpretation, while a substantive review is limited to correcting factual inaccuracies within the same court.
• B. A procedural review is available only in appellate courts, whereas a substantive review may be conducted by the original court that issued in court
• C. A procedural review is inherent or implied in a court to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it. However, a substantive review is when error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record.
• D. A procedural review involves correcting errors of judgement made after hearing the parties while a substantive review is confined to omissions in recording of legal reasoning.
• A. Ex debito justitiae, to correct a factual error not brought to its notice earlier.
• B. Inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court.
• C. The power of a criminal court to conduct a "substantive review" on the merits of the case.
• D. The binding nature of the Supreme Court's earlier Judgment which mandated a decision on the perjury application.
• A. Such power is expressly conferred upon court by law
• B. The court passing such a judgement or order lacked inherent jurisdiction to do so
• C. Fact relating to non-serving of necessary party being non-represented, not brought to notice of court while passing such judgment or order
• D. A subsequent judicial precedent renders the earlier judgment legally untenable
• A. Only I is correct
• B. Only II is correct
• C. Both I and II are correct
• D. Both I and II are incorrect

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the specific exception mentioned in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. that allows a criminal court to alter its own judgment.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The provided passage directly answers this question. It summarizes the law under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and states: "...the criminal courts... are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error...".
Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, itself reads: "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."
Options (A), (B), and (D) represent errors of substance (fact, law, or overlooking a binding precedent), which fall under the category of substantive review. Section 362 explicitly bars such reviews and only permits the correction of minor, accidental slips, i.e., clerical and arithmetical errors.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The only circumstance explicitly mentioned in Section 362 Cr.P.C. for altering a judgment is to correct clerical and arithmetical errors.

Answer 2

Section 362 CrPC (mirrored in Section 403 of the BNSS, 2023) closes the door on a criminal court reopening its own signed judgment or order, and it lets in exactly one narrow exception. Testing each option against that exception shows which one actually qualifies.

1. Error as to a question of fact: Going back to reassess whether the facts were rightly found means reweighing evidence already appraised at trial. That is a full merits review, which is precisely what Section 362 was written to stop, so this cannot be the exception.
2. Error as to a question of law: A wrong view of law is corrected through an appeal or revision before a higher court, not by the same court rewriting its own order. Allowing the trial court to alter its judgment for a legal error would let it sit in appeal over itself, which the provision does not permit.
3. Clerical and arithmetical errors: A clerical slip (a wrong date, a misspelt name) or an arithmetical slip (a wrong total, a miscopied figure) does not touch the reasoning or the outcome the court actually intended. Fixing it merely makes the written order match the court's real decision, so it does not amount to a review at all. This is the one situation the statute expressly carves out.
4. Order rendered per incuriam: An order passed in ignorance of a binding precedent or statute is a substantive legal defect. Correcting it would mean the court going back on the reasoning of its own decision, which again falls outside the narrow clerical/arithmetical carve-out.

Only the correction of clerical and arithmetical errors leaves the court's decision untouched while fixing the record, which is why the law permits it without treating it as a review.

Therefore, the correct answer is if there is/are clerical and arithmetical errors.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the correct distinction between "procedural review" and "substantive review" in the context of criminal courts' power to recall their orders.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage states that the bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to a "procedural review" but does apply to a "substantive review".


Procedural Review: This refers to the power of a court to recall an order that was passed due to a procedural defect, mistake, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Examples include an order passed against a party who was not served with notice, or an order passed under a clear misapprehension of facts (e.g., believing a party was absent when they were present). This power is considered inherent in the court to correct its own procedural mistakes.
Substantive Review: This involves a re-examination of the merits of the case, either on facts or on law. It means the court is asked to change its mind about the conclusion it reached after a full hearing. This is what Section 362 strictly prohibits.
Let's analyze the options:

(A) and (B) are incorrect descriptions of the distinction and the courts where they apply.
(C) accurately captures this difference. It correctly identifies procedural review as an inherent power to correct orders passed under misapprehension and substantive review as dealing with errors of law on the merits, which is barred.
(D) provides a confusing and inaccurate distinction.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The distinction lies in the nature of the error. Procedural review corrects errors in the process of reaching a decision, while substantive review seeks to correct the decision itself. Option (C) best describes this.

Answer 4

The distinction between a procedural review and a substantive review turns on what triggers the court's power to act and who can exercise it. Checking each option against that test shows which description is accurate.

1. Procedural review only for interpretation errors by a higher court, substantive review limited to factual inaccuracies in the same court: This mixes up the two ideas. A higher court correcting an interpretation error is simply appellate correction, not what either "review" doctrine addresses, and factual inaccuracy alone does not define substantive review either, so this option is wrong.
2. Procedural review only in appellate courts, substantive review only in the original court: This gets the courts backwards. The inherent power to recall an order for a procedural defect belongs to the very court that passed the order, not an appellate court, so this description does not hold.
3. Procedural review as an inherent power to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension, substantive review as correcting an error of law apparent on the face of the record: This matches the settled position. A court can recall its own order on discovering it was passed under a mistaken belief about the facts before it (for instance, treating a party as unrepresented when it was represented), because that defect never went to the merits. A substantive review, by contrast, means reopening a decided legal question, which needs express statutory authority and is barred in criminal proceedings.
4. Procedural review as correcting errors of judgment made after hearing the parties, substantive review as confined to omissions in recording legal reasoning: This inverts the concepts. Correcting a judgment made after a full hearing on the merits is exactly what a substantive review would be, not a procedural one, so the labels here are swapped and the option is wrong.

The description that keeps the two categories correctly separated, an inherent power against orders passed under misapprehension for procedural review, and correction of a legal error apparent on the record for substantive review, is the accurate one.

Therefore, the correct answer is a procedural review is inherent or implied in a court to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it; a substantive review is when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks about the legal power or principle that the High Court likely invoked to justify recalling its own judgment, a power the Supreme Court later found to be impermissible.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage provides a strong clue. It states: "Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar." This indicates that the argument for review was likely based on the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This section grants High Courts inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. Litigants often invoke this section to seek recall of orders, arguing that the order's continuance would amount to an abuse of process. The Supreme Court's observation clarifies that this inherent power, though wide, cannot be used to override the specific and explicit bar against substantive review contained in Section 362.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The High Court would have claimed its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to justify its action, a justification the Supreme Court rejected as being constrained by the bar in Section 362.

Answer 6

The question asks which power the High Court relied on to recall its own judgment, a basis the Supreme Court found could not override the bar on review. Testing the four options against what power a High Court could conceivably invoke shows which one fits.

1. Ex debito justitiae to correct a factual error not brought to notice earlier: This doctrine lets a court do justice on its own motion in exceptional cases, but it is usually invoked alongside, not instead of, a specific statutory or inherent power, and the passage does not point to a fresh factual discovery as the ground here.
2. Inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process of any Court: Section 482 preserves the High Court's inherent power to pass any order needed to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. It is the one general reservoir of power litigants commonly invoke to ask a High Court to recall its own order, and the passage's own language about "the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC" being unable to "circumvent an explicit bar" confirms that this was the power actually pressed into service.
3. Power to conduct a substantive review on the merits: No court, including a High Court, has an inherent power to conduct a substantive review, since Section 362 bars exactly that. This could not have been the claimed basis because it does not exist as a power to begin with.
4. Binding nature of an earlier Supreme Court judgment mandating a decision on the perjury application: Being bound by an earlier ruling to decide something is a direction to act, not a power to recall a judgment already passed, so this does not describe a basis for review.

Of the four, only the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is a real, recognised power that a High Court could invoke, and it is the one the Supreme Court held cannot be stretched to defeat the bar in Section 362.

Therefore, the correct answer is inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify which of the given options is NOT a valid exception to the general bar on review under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Jurisprudence has carved out very narrow exceptions to the absolute bar in Section 362. These are generally limited to procedural and jurisdictional errors. Let's analyze the options:

(A) Such power is expressly conferred upon court by law: This is an explicit exception mentioned in Section 362 itself ("Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law..."). An example is correcting clerical errors. So, this IS an exception.
(B) The court passing such a judgement or order lacked inherent jurisdiction: An order passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity (*coram non judice*). The court has the power to recall such a void order. This IS a recognized exception.
(C) Fact relating to non-serving of necessary party being non-represented...: This is a classic example of a violation of the principles of natural justice (*audi alteram partem*). An order passed without hearing a necessary party is procedurally flawed, and the court can recall it. This IS a recognized exception (procedural review).
(D) A subsequent judicial precedent renders the earlier judgment legally untenable: This would require the court to re-examine the merits of its decision based on a later change or clarification in the law. This is a substantive review of a perceived legal error. This is precisely what Section 362 prohibits. A final judgment cannot be reopened simply because the law is later interpreted differently by a higher court.
Step 3: Final Answer:
A court cannot review its final judgment because a subsequent precedent has changed the legal landscape. This is not a valid exception to the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Answer 8

The recognised exceptions to the bar in Section 362 CrPC are narrow and procedural or jurisdictional in nature. Checking each listed ground against that narrow band shows which one falls outside it.

1. Power expressly conferred on the court by law: Section 362 itself begins "save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law," so a specific statutory grant of power to alter a judgment is a built-in, valid exception.
2. The court lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the order: An order passed by a court with no jurisdiction over the matter is a nullity from the start. Courts have always retained the power to recall their own void orders, so this is a valid exception too.
3. Non-service of a necessary party not brought to the court's notice: Passing an order without hearing a party who was never served breaches natural justice at the procedural level. Courts recall such orders as a matter of course, so this is also a valid exception.
4. A subsequent judicial precedent rendering the earlier judgment legally untenable: This asks the court to reopen a final judgment simply because the law was later read differently by another court. That is a change in legal position after the fact, not a procedural or jurisdictional defect present at the time of the order, so acting on it would mean a full substantive review, which Section 362 forbids.

The first three all describe defects that existed at the time the order was passed and that fall within the settled procedural or jurisdictional carve-outs. The fourth asks for reopening because of a later change in the law, which is exactly the kind of substantive review the bar exists to prevent.

Therefore, the correct answer is a subsequent judicial precedent renders the earlier judgment legally untenable.

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question presents two statements about the conditions for using the exceptional power to recall a criminal judgment and asks which statement(s) is/are correct.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze each statement:

Statement I: "The exceptions are exercisable only if a ground that is raised was not available or existent at the time of original proceedings before the Court". This is incorrect. The main grounds for recall, like lack of jurisdiction or non-service of a party, are defects that {did exist} at the time of the original proceedings. The very problem is that the court passed an order despite an existing jurisdictional defect or a procedural violation. This statement reflects a condition for review in civil cases (discovery of new and important matter), which is not applicable here.
Statement II: "The said power cannot be invoked as a means to circumvent the finality of the judicial process or mistakes and/or errors in the decision which are attributable to a conscious omission by the parties." This statement is correct. The power to recall is not a back door for an appeal or a chance to re-argue points that were, or could have been, argued. It is meant to correct fundamental errors that vitiate the proceedings, not to save parties from their own negligence or to correct errors of judgment made after a full hearing. The finality of judgments (*functus officio*) is a core principle that these narrow exceptions do not seek to undermine wholesale.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Statement I is incorrect, and Statement II is correct. Therefore, the correct option is (B).

Answer 10

The question tests two claims about when the exception to Section 362 CrPC can be used. Each statement needs to be checked on its own before picking the option that matches.

1. Only I is correct: Statement I says the exception applies only if the ground raised was not available or did not exist at the time of the original proceedings. This describes the test for a civil review under Order 47 CPC (discovery of new evidence), not the criminal recall power, where the classic grounds (lack of jurisdiction, non-service, mistaken facts) are defects that were already present when the order was passed, not new later. So Statement I does not hold, and this option is wrong.
2. Only II is correct: Statement II says the power cannot be used to get around the finality of the judicial process, or to fix mistakes caused by a party's own conscious omission. This matches how courts have limited this power: it exists to fix genuine procedural or jurisdictional defects, not to give a party a second chance after choosing not to raise a point, or to reopen a case that has otherwise become final. Since Statement I fails and Statement II holds, this is the option that fits.
3. Both I and II are correct: This cannot be right, since Statement I does not hold for the reasons above.
4. Both I and II are incorrect: This cannot be right either, since Statement II is a correct description of the limits on this power.

Since Statement I fails the test of matching the actual grounds for recall, and Statement II accurately states a real limit on the power, only Statement II is correct.

Therefore, the correct answer is Only II is correct.