Judgment:
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for restoration of the miscellaneous petition No. 267/88 which was dismissed in default on January 11, 1988.
2. A bus No. RSC 565 was seized by the police on June 26, 1987 in a Criminal Case No. 97 of 1986 The State of Rajasthan v. Kalu Khan and Ors. under Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. After the seizure of the bus, the petitioner Himta Ram moved an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the Roadways Magistrate, Bikaner, for delivery of the bus. Mani Ram non petitioner, No. 2, also, filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for delivery of the bus to him. The learned Roadways Magistrate, by his order dated June 30, 1987 decided both the applications filed by the petitioner as well as by Mani Ram for the custody of the bus. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected while the application filed by Mani Ram was allowed and the Court directed that the bus in question may be given on 'SUPURDGINAMA' to Mani Ram. Dissatisfied with the order dated June, 30, 1987, passed by the learned Roadways Magistrate, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner by his order dated August 4, 1987 rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved with the order dated August 4, 1987, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous petition before this Court, which was registered as : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 194 of 1987. That application came up for consideration before NC Sharma, J., who dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner by his order dated October 19, 1987. After dismissal of the miscellaneous petition No. 194 of 1987, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the order dated October 19, 1987. That miscellaneous petition was registered as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 297 of 1987 Himta Ram v. Mani Ram and Ors. The miscellaneous petition came up for consideration before Hon'ble N.C. Sharma, J. on January 11, 1988 and as nobody was present when the case was called, therefore the petition was dismissed in default. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the non petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order passed by Hon'ble N.C. Sharma, J.
4. It has been mentioned in this application that the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner, both, were present in the Court on January 11, 1988 when the case was listed. Sometime before when the case was called, the counsel for the petitioner had gone to take water and when he returned, by that time the case was already dismissed in default. The petitioner himself was present in the Court, but he could not know when the case was called. Before considering this application. I think it proper to consider the earlier application for recalling the order on merits, If that application can be allowed, only in that circumstance, it is useful to allow this application and, therefore, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the non petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor on merit on that application.
5. The order dated October 19, 1987 was passed by Hon'ble N.C. Sharma, J. on merit and when once the order has been passed on merit, this Court, exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot review its own order as the review is not permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is expressly barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C. Section 362 Cr.P.C. provides that no Court, when it has assigned its Judgment or final order, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error, if the law so permits. When there is a specific bar to review the order passed by the Court than the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the present case as there is no abuse of the process of the Court and the order, also, does not required to be panes secure the ends of justice. The Court under the purported exercise of inherent power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, thus, not empowered to review its own decision. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mostt. Simrikhia v. Smt. Lolley Mukherjee alias Chhabi Mukherjee and Anr. 1990 Cr.L.J. 1599 as under:
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review under Section 362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal (1981) S.C.C. 500 : 1981 Cr.L.J. 296 that the Inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is therefore clear that the Inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which cannot be done on account of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The Court is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power. We find that the impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a reconsideration of the same materials. The High Court has grieviously erred in doing so. Even on merits, we do not find any compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at that stage.
6. In view of the specific bar to review or recall the order dated October 19, 1987 the SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 297 of 1987 cannot be allowed and as that petition for recalling the order cannot be allowed, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in restoring the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 297 of 1987.
7. In this view of the matter, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is, therefore, dismissed.