Section 362 CrPC bars recall of final criminal orders, so restoration of a dismissed revision by the same court was void.

Section 362 CrPC bars a criminal court from reviewing, recalling, altering, or restoring its final order, except for clerical or arithmetical corrections. An Additional Sessions Judge therefore had no jurisdiction to restore a criminal revision petition dismissed for default, even if dismissal for non-appearance was procedurally flawed. The proper remedy was to approach a higher court, and inherent powers could not be used to defeat the statutory prohibition. The restoration order was set aside and the earlier dismissal continued to operate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to restore or review an order dismissing a criminal revision petition for default in view of the bar under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petition challenged the order by which the revision petition, once dismissed for non-appearance, was restored. The controlling principle applied was that a criminal court has no power to alter, amend, review, recall, or restore its judgment or final order, except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. The fact that dismissal for default in a criminal revision is not the proper course did not confer jurisdiction on the same court to undo its own order, because section 362 creates a complete prohibition against review or recall. The remedy lay before the higher court, and inherent powers could not be used to bypass the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The restoration order was without jurisdiction and was set aside. The petitioner succeeded, and the earlier dismissal of the revision petition remained operative.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 absolutely bars a criminal court from reviewing or recalling its final order, so an erroneously dismissed criminal revision cannot be restored by the same court and must be challenged before a higher court.

---