1 2025:CGHC:43928-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2575 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Thakur @ Chhotu @ Rajendra Thakur S/o Shambhu Thakur Aged About 21 Years R/o Attharahgudi, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29.08.2025 Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking correction of an alleged clerical error in the judgment dated 06.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2009/2019, whereby the judgment was reserved on 31.07.2025 and pronounced on 06.08.2025. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the misrecording of the name of counsel in the judgment constitutes a clerical error, rectifiable under Section 403 of BNSS, 2023, which empowers the Court to correct such errors at any time. Advocate Akshat Tiwary has never appeared in the case on any prior date, nor did he argue the matter, which confirms that his inclusion in the judgment is erroneous. The correction sought does not affect the merits of the case or the substance of the judgment but merely seeks to accurately reflect the name of the arguing counsel. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents available on record. 4. Upon consideration of the submissions and the material placed on record, this Court observes that the judgment dated 06.08.2025 in CRA No. 2009/2019 is a final judicial pronouncement, which was passed after due adjudication of the matter on merits. The request now made pertains to the substitution of the name of the arguing counsel as recorded in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 5. It is trite law that once a judgment has been signed and pronounced by the Court, any modification thereto must be made with utmost caution and only in cases where the error is purely clerical or arithmetical, not involving re-appreciation of facts or subjective determination. The petitioner has not produced any contemporaneous record or acknowledgment from the Court 3 registry or the presiding Bench conclusively showing that the name of Advocate Palaash Jha was duly noted for purposes of final record. Mere submission of a written synopsis, even if signed, does not by itself establish a judicial error unless the Court record reflects such submission was officially taken on file or read into record. Moreover, the present petition is premised on conflicting claims of two advocates, and in the absence of a clear record or judicial acknowledgment during proceedings, the same cannot be entertained under the limited scope of Section 403 BNSS. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find sufficient ground to hold that the inclusion of the name "Akshat Tiwari, Advocate" in the judgment dated 06.08.2025 amounts to a clerical or typographical error liable to be corrected under Section 403 of BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge Judge