In Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr. [ 2025 INSC 1020], the Supreme Court held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments once signed. The only exception expressly provided in the statute is for the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error.
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that a criminal court becomes functus officio—having discharged its duty—once it pronounces and signs a judgment. Thereafter, its power is limited to correcting minor clerical or arithmetical errors. Any substantive alteration is impermissible except in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Drawing upon established precedent, the Supreme Court identified the following exceptional circumstances under which a criminal court is empowered to alter its final judgment or order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 362 of the CrPC:
- Where such power is expressly conferred by the CrPC or any other law in force;
- Where the court that passed the judgment or order lacked inherent jurisdiction to do so;
- Where the judgment or order was obtained by fraud or collusion;
- Where a manifest injustice has been caused to a party due to a mistake attributable to the court; or
- Where a necessary party was not served, or where the death of a party resulted in their estate being unrepresented, and these facts were not brought to the court’s attention.
