B.C. Chakraborty, J. - (1.) This is an application for restoration of Criminal Revision Case No. 1400 of 1980 which was heard on April 10, 1981 in presence of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2, the State, the opposite party No. I being found absent. In the application subsequently filed by opposite party No. 1 for re-calling the order for the purpose re-hearing the Criminal Revision Case it is stated that there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the learned Advocate for opposite party No. I in not attending the court when the case was called on and taken up for hearing.
(2.) This application is opposed by the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 Heard the learned Advocates, Mr Panda appearing in support of the applicant relies on S-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in support of his prate. While on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the court is powerless in view of the provision of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to alter or review the judgment except for the purpose of correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. It is submitted by him that the application is not to correct any clerical or arithmetical error but to re-hear the original application itself, which according to him, is not permitted or provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) Mr. Panda in support of his contention submits that the prayer can be considered under Section 482 and he relies on a decision in the case of The State of Bombay v. Nilkanta Sripad Bhave & anr., reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 65 That, however, was a case which related to the jurisdiction of the revisional court to expunge certain observation and the question was whether the court had the inherent power to do so under Section 561A of the Code, the provisions whereof are similar to the amended provisions of Section 482 Against this the learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to a decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chunder Agarwalla reported in AIR 1979 SC 87 in support of the contention that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgement as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction.;