Section 190 — No Alteration of a Judgment Once Read
Statutory text (Thai original)
ห้ามมิให้แก้ไขคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งซึ่งอ่านแล้ว นอกจากแก้ถ้อยคำที่เขียนหรือพิมพ์ผิดพลาด
English translation
No judgment or order that has been read may be altered, except to correct wording that has been written or typed in error.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 190 protects the finality and integrity of a pronounced decision within Title 3 on judgments and orders. Once a judgment or order has been read, the court that made it is functus officio as to substance and may only correct clerical errors of writing or typing. Substantive changes, such as recalculating a penalty enhancement, altering how sentences run consecutively, or reopening the result after finality, fall outside the clerical-error exception and are prohibited. The provision interacts closely with the rules on finality of judgments and with Section 191, under which a party may ask the court to explain, rather than change, a decision it finds unclear.
Why this matters in practice
If you believe a criminal judgment contains an error, understand the difference between a typo and a substantive mistake. Only a genuine clerical slip can be corrected under Section 190; anything affecting the outcome or the penalty must be challenged through appeal within the statutory time limit, not by a later motion to amend. After a case is final, courts will refuse requests to recompute or restructure a sentence, so raise substantive objections in your appeal to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court while the deadline is still open.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2361/2567 (2024)
After a case is final, the court cannot revisit a penalty enhancement because that is a substantive change, not the correction of a clerical or typing error permitted by Section 190.
The penalty enhancement had already been fully applied before the later Act took effect, so the defendant gained no benefit from it. The Supreme Court held that once the case was final the enhancement could not be changed, as it was not a clerical correction under Section 190 and did not fall within Penal Code Sections 2 or 3 that would allow reopening the case.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 322/2567 (2024)
Issuing a new imprisonment warrant that reorders how sentences run consecutively after a judgment is final amounts to a prohibited alteration of a read judgment under Section 190.
The defendant sought a warrant ordering that this case's imprisonment be counted together with, or consecutive to, another final case. The Supreme Court held that changing how the sentences ran would effectively alter a final judgment contrary to Section 190, which permits only correction of writing or typing errors, and upheld the lower court in result.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2610/2566 (2023)
Re-fixing a penalty to correct only the one-third enhancement is a lawful re-determination of the sentence, not a prohibited alteration of a final judgment under Section 190.
The trial court re-determined the defendant's penalty only as to the one-third enhancement under Penal Code Section 92, treating the enhancement as part of the sentence fixed by the judgment. The Supreme Court held this was a lawful re-fixing of the penalty and not an amendment of a final judgment prohibited by Section 190, and reversed the Court of Appeal to restore the trial court's order.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can a Thai court change a criminal judgment after it has been read?
No. Under Section 190 the court may only correct clerical or typing errors after a judgment is read; it cannot change the substance of the decision or the penalty.
Can a sentence be recalculated after a criminal case is final?
Generally no. Recomputing a penalty enhancement or how sentences run consecutively is a substantive change barred by Section 190 once the case is final; such issues must be raised on appeal.