Section 403 BNSS – Court not to alter judgment

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.

Corresponding provisions — source comparison

Reference in this text	Correspondence / source caption
Section 403 — Court not to alter judgment	Corresponding provision: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 362 Source ↗

Comments

Recall of bail orderSection 362 CrPC bars alteration of a signed order except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The High Court could not recall a bail order recorded as allowed on the plea that the court master had made a clerical slip when the operative order was otherwise. — Rambali Sahni v. State of Bihar, Supreme Court, 2026.

No review or recall in s. 340 proceedingsSection 362 completely bars a criminal court from reviewing its signed judgment save for clerical or arithmetical errors, and s. 340 proceedings are criminal, so a CPC review is not available. Recall is possible only where the Code confers power, the court lacked inherent jurisdiction, fraud was played, the court’s own mistake caused prejudice, or a necessary party was not served or had died. — Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla, 2025 INSC 1020.

Section 482 cannot override s. 362Inherent power under s. 482 cannot be used to get around the specific bar on review in s. 362. — M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan, 2025 INSC 888.

No altering conviction after judgmentThe High Court could not, under s. 362, convert a signed judgment’s murder conviction to s. 304 Part II and reduce sentence; only clerical or arithmetical errors may be corrected. — Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 544; AIR 2025 SC 2151.

Bail refusal can be revisitedThe bar on altering judgments does not apply to an order refusing bail, which is interlocutory in character; a fresh plea on changed circumstances, or a variation of conditions, may be entertained. — Ramadhar Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court, 2023.

Procedural review permittedAn application to recall an order is maintainable where it seeks procedural, not substantive, review. — Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, Supreme Court, 2022.