Section 403 BNSS: Court not to alter judgment (Formerly Section 362 CrPC)

Section 403 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Court not to alter judgment

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 403

Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 362 of the CrPC, 1973) enshrines the fundamental rule of finality (functus officio), strictly barring criminal courts from altering or reviewing a judgment or final order once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.

Absolute Bar on Alteration / Review: No Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same.
Sole Statutory Exception: The prohibition is absolute except for the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error.
Inherent Powers Inapplicable: Even the High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to review or alter a final criminal judgment in violation of this express statutory bar.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169: The Supreme Court authoritatively held that Section 362 CrPC (Section 403 BNSS) is an absolute bar against rehearing or reviewing a final criminal order on merits; inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to subvert this statutory bar.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770: Reaffirmed that once a criminal court signs an order disposing of a case, it becomes functus officio and cannot entertain recall or modification petitions.
Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, (2020) 13 SCC 172: Clarified that interim or interlocutory orders (such as maintenance or process orders) do not attract the Section 362 bar, but final judgments do.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Oppose any miscellaneous application by the opposite party seeking 'clarification' or 'modification' of a final judgment or discharge order as a disguised review strictly prohibited under Section 403.