Final criminal orders cannot be reopened indirectly; a prior refusal on witness evidence bars later directions for additional evidence.

A final criminal order cannot be altered or reviewed where the statute bars review, and a concluded refusal cannot be reopened through a later application. The prior rejection of the request to examine a witness had attained finality, so it could not be indirectly revived by a direction to the trial court to permit additional evidence. While a trial court may receive evidence at appropriate stages, that power cannot be used to neutralise an earlier final order on the same relief. The impugned refusal to review was upheld, and the direction for additional evidence was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could alter or review its earlier final order in view of the statutory bar on review. (ii) Whether the direction requiring the trial court to permit additional evidence by examining the witness could be sustained when the very relief had earlier been refused and had attained finality.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could alter or review its earlier final order in view of the statutory bar on review.

Analysis: The earlier order of the High Court was a final order. Once that position was accepted, the statutory prohibition against altering or reviewing a final order operated. The later application could not be used to reopen the concluded matter. The earlier rejection had attained finality and could not be indirectly circumvented through a fresh application.

Conclusion: The High Court could not review or alter its earlier final order.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction requiring the trial court to permit additional evidence by examining the witness could be sustained when the very relief had earlier been refused and had attained finality.

Analysis: The request to examine the witness was not part of the original prayer and the same relief had already been refused by a prior order which was never challenged. Once that refusal became final, judicial propriety required that it not be reopened. Although the trial court has power to receive evidence at appropriate stages, that power could not be invoked to neutralize a concluded order passed earlier on the same relief.

Conclusion: The direction to allow additional evidence could not be sustained and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing review was upheld, but the direction requiring the trial court to permit additional evidence was quashed, leaving the complainant's application rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A final criminal order cannot be reviewed or altered except as permitted by law, and a relief that has already been refused and attained finality cannot be reopened indirectly through a later application or direction for additional evidence.

---