Inherent criminal review power survives the bar on alteration where needed to secure the ends of justice.

Section 561-A inherent power was treated as surviving the bar on alteration or review after judgment, allowing recall of a criminal order where necessary to secure the ends of justice. The earlier authorities were distinguished, and the Full Bench view recognising limited recall or review power was followed. The Court also stressed that a joint proceeding under Section 145 could not be effectively revised for one claimant alone when the other joint claimants were not before the revisional court and the original order had become final against them. On the record, possession with the opposite side was sufficiently established, so the Magistrate's order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could invoke its inherent power to review and recall its earlier criminal order notwithstanding the bar against alteration or review after judgment. (ii) Whether the criminal reference and the consequent order could stand where all joint claimants were not parties to the revision and the reference was treated as involving factual questions.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could invoke its inherent power to review and recall its earlier criminal order notwithstanding the bar against alteration or review after judgment.

Analysis: The statutory bar on altering or reviewing a signed judgment was read as subject to the Code itself, and the inherent power preserved by Section 561-A was held to survive that restriction. The earlier authorities relied upon were distinguished on their facts, and the Full Bench view recognising a limited power to recall or review in order to secure the ends of justice was followed.

Conclusion: The application for review under Section 561-A was maintainable and the earlier order could be recalled.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal reference and the consequent order could stand where all joint claimants were not parties to the revision and the reference was treated as involving factual questions.

Analysis: The original claim under Section 145 was joint, and the order of the Magistrate had become final against the other claimants who did not challenge it. The Court held that an effective order could not be made in favour of only one joint claimant in the absence of the others, and that a criminal reference could not properly be founded on questions of fact. On the record, possession with the opposite side was sufficiently established, so the earlier interference was found to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The reference was rejected and the Magistrate's order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The High Court recalled its earlier criminal order, upheld the Magistrate's determination of possession, and left the land to be released in favour of the party found to be in possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's inherent power under Section 561-A may be used sparingly to recall a criminal order where necessary to secure the ends of justice, but a joint proceeding cannot be effectively revised in favour of one claimant alone when the other joint claimants are not before the revisional court and the order against them has become final.

---