Scope of remand order restricts further evidence to specific directions, excluding de novo trial or additional witnesses.

The petitioner was originally acquitted in a criminal trial, but the judgment was reversed on appeal.

The petitioner then filed a revisional application (CRR/15/2021), resulting in a remand order dated April 29, 2022. The remand directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the government examiner of questioned documents and pass a fresh judgment based on existing evidence within three months.

After the cross-examination and a subsequent examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, the petitioner sought to adduce independent defense witnesses (DW).

On February 11, 2026, the Magistrate initially fixed a date for DW evidence.

However, upon an application by the prosecution, the Magistrate passed the impugned order holding that there was no scope for further DW evidence as it exceeded the scope of the remand.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s order closing the defense evidence amounted to an impermissible review or alteration of a final order under Section 362 of the CrPC.

2. Whether an order of remand for the specific purpose of cross-examining a particular witness entitles the accused to lead fresh independent defense evidence.

3. Whether an examination under Section 313 of the CrPC automatically reopens the trial for adducing new independent witnesses.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prohibits a court from altering or reviewing a signed judgment or final order except to correct clerical/arithmetical errors.

The principle of judicial record rectification, asserting that courts possess inherent power to correct errors apparent on the face of the record.

Regarding Section 313 of the CrPC, the court interpreted its scope as limited to enabling the accused to explain incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, rather than serving as a gateway to reopen the entire trial.

The High Court found that the Magistrate did not violate Section 362 because the earlier order (fixing a date for evidence) was a procedural step, not an adjudication of the petitioner's right to lead fresh evidence.

The court noted that even if it were seen as a reversal, a court has the inherent power to rectify a "glaring error" to align with superior court mandates.

Upon interpreting the specific remand order dated April 29, 2022, the court emphasized the phrase "on the basis of evidence on record". This signified that the remand was limited to the cross-examination of the government examiner and did not grant an "open remand" to cure the petitioner's prior failure to adduce witnesses in the first round of litigation.

The court reasoned that the Section 313 examination was necessitated only by the new testimony from the examiner and did not justify a de novo trial.

The High Court dismissed the revisional application and affirmed the Magistrate's order dated February 24, 2026. The Magistrate acted within jurisdiction to correct the procedural trajectory of the case to keep it within the bounds of the High Court’s specific directions.