Revisional jurisdiction cannot shield a conviction from service consequences; a jurisdictionally void order may still be recalled.

A criminal revisional court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can examine the legality and propriety of a conviction, but it cannot insulate the convicted employee from service consequences or direct that the conviction will not affect the employee's career. Relief from collateral consequences must flow from an appropriate statutory source, not from revisional jurisdiction. An order made without jurisdiction, obtained behind the affected party's back, or amounting to abuse of process may be recalled despite Section 362, since such an order is a nullity and may be corrected through the court's inherent power under Section 482 to prevent injustice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in revision arising from a criminal conviction, the High Court could direct that the conviction would not adversely affect the employee's service career. (ii) Whether the High Court could refuse recall of such an order by invoking the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether, in revision arising from a criminal conviction, the High Court could direct that the conviction would not adversely affect the employee's service career.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to testing the correctness, legality and propriety of findings, sentences and orders of inferior criminal courts. It is a supervisory jurisdiction over criminal proceedings, not a power to control the employer's disciplinary domain or to preclude civil or service consequences flowing from a conviction. If relief from collateral consequences was available, it could arise only under an appropriate statutory provision such as the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and not by an order insulating the employee from employer action in a revision.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to protect the respondent's service career from the consequences of conviction, and the order passed in that behalf was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could refuse recall of such an order by invoking the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 362 bars alteration or review of a judgment, but it is subject to the Code and to the inherent power saved by Section 482. An order passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or procured by abuse of process can be recalled because such an order is a nullity. Here, the impugned order had been obtained behind the employer's back and was beyond the High Court's revisional powers, so the reliance on Section 362 did not protect it from recall.

Conclusion: The recall application could not be rejected on the ground of Section 362, and the High Court ought to have set aside the earlier order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order insulating the respondent's conviction from service consequences was beyond jurisdiction and was set aside, with the employer left free to take any action in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal revisional court cannot, while dealing with a conviction, immunize the convicted employee from service consequences, and an order passed without jurisdiction may be recalled notwithstanding Section 362 where inherent power under Section 482 is necessary to prevent abuse of process.

---