The acquittal of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa by Karnataka High Court Justice CR Kumaraswamy in a Disproportionate Assets case has attracted criticism with regard to mathematical errors in the judgement. There exists a provision within the law to alter or review the verdict though. Section 362 of the CrPc says: "Save as otherwise provided by this Code 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." There has been much debate in political circles and on social media on the repercussions for the former Tamil Nadu CM if the Karnataka government decides to file an appeal. Legal experts have said although Justice Kumaraswamy cannot alter the verdict, alterations can be made in the judgment if clerical or mathematical errors were found. Also Read: Are there glaring mathematical errors in Jayalalithaa case judgement? Opponents think so The section may thus allow Kumaraswamy to review the verdict after many have cited “errors” in the judgment. In a press statement, the DMK has said that they will file an appeal and have asked the Karnataka goverment to file an appeal as they had been the public prosecution in the case. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has also questioned the judgment calling it a “tragedy of arithmetic errors”. In my Appeal to SC In JJ DA case. I will prove that the KHC judgment is a "tragedy of arithmetic errors". JJ will have to resign again if CM — Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) May 12, 2015 The public prosecutor in the case BV Acharya says that he has noticed the error too. "The DA will come to 16.34 crores as against 2 crore. Therefore, there is a glaring arithmetical error in terms of calculation. Fundamental mistake is in totaling 10 items of the loan,” he says, adding, “Since this glaring mistake has come to my notice, I'm considering all options available. If SC appeal is decided, this will be an excellent point.” He added that a stay of the judgment is a “matter of deep consideration”.