Madhusudan Rao J.
1. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1975 on the file of the Sessions Court Eluru preferred a revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru in the Criminal Appeal. The revision petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court at the admission stage on 11-5-1976 after hearing the petitioner's learned Counsel, Sri M. Dwarkanath, Subsequently, Sri Dwarkanath mentioned before the learned Judge that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and that the illegality was not brought to the notice of the Court when the revision petition was argued on 11-5-1976, The learned Judge thereupon cancelled the order dated 11-5-1976 dismissing the revision petition, and directed by his order dated 8-6-1976 that the revision case be admitted on the court's file and that the case should be posted for final hearing after due notice to the Public Prosecutor. The revision case came up for hearing before our learned brother Muktadar, J. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor before Muktadar, J. that the order dated 8-6-1976 reviewing the dismissal order dated 11-5-11976 is without jurisdiction and that the revision petition is, therefore, not maintainable, Muktadar, J. opined that the contention of the Public Prosecutor had some force. Being of the view that the question is of considerable importance, he referred the matter to a Bench and that is how this revision has come up before us.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether after pronouncing an order of dismissal in a Criminal Revision Petition, the High Court can review its own order of dismissal and entertain a further revision. Answer to the question is directly found in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new) which reads:
Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force no Court, when it has signed its judgment, or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
The new Section 362 corresponds to the old Section 369 with slight change. The old Section 369 read as follows:
Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of a High Court by the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error.' The words 'or, in the case of a High Court by the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such High Court' in Section 369 of the Old Code have been omitted in the new Section. The omission indicates that alteration or review by a High Court would be permissible as in case of other courts where provision therefor is made in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force. The words 'or final order' have been introduced in the new Section to make it clear that the Section is applicable not only to judgments but also to final orders, Even without these words in the corresponding old Section, the principle of the Section was applied by the Courts to final orders also. Another addition in the new Section is of the words 'or arithmetical.' These words are added in the new Section to clarify that errors in the judgment or final order arising by erroneous arithmetical calculations may also be subsequently corrected by the court passing the judgment or order.
3. If is an universal principle of law that when matter has been finally disposed of by a Court, such Court is functus officio in respect of that matter. In the absence of a direct statutory provision the court which became functus officio cannot entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside. It is this cardinal principle of universal application that has been incorporated in Section 369 of the Old Code and Section 362 of the new Code. If an application for a certain prayer based on certain facts has been disposed of by the court, entertaining a fresh application with the same prayer on the same facts is not permissible as such course involves the cancellation or alteration or review of the previous order, unless there is a specific provision in the Code or in any other law permitting the cancellation, alteration or review of the earlier order. Admittedly, there is no provision in any other law permitting the High Court to alter or review a final order passed by it in a Criminal Revision Case. The only provision on which Sri Dwarkanath, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner places reliance is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Section 482 is a verbatim reproduction of Section 561-A in the Old Code. In G.H. Bhatia v. Bholumal : AIR1959AP254 it was held by this Court that 'if a criminal revision petition is dismissed on the merits by the High Court after fully hearing the parties, the principle of equity and justice will demand that no other petition on the same matter should be entertained.' In Public Prosecutor v. Devireddi AIR 1962 Andh Pra 479 : 1962 2 Cri LJ 727 (FB) a Full Bench of this Court held that 'there is no such inherent power in the High Court under Section 561-A to alter or review its own judgment once it has been pronounced except in cases where it was passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance, i.e. without affording an opportunity to the accused to appear.' In Rangaswami v. Narayanan : AIR1966Mad163 it was pointed out that 'Section 561-A Crl. P.C. does not in any way enlarge the powers conferred under the Code especially when it is provided in the Code that no court when it has signed the judgment, shall alter or review the same.' In Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P. : AIR1962SC1208 the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that inherent powers cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits the court from doing. When Section 362 expressly prohibits the court from altering or reviewing its final order after the same is signed, it would not be open to the High Court to review or alter the order by admitting a fresh revision application.
4. In the. instant case, the petitioner's revision application against the order of the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed on 11-5-1976 after hearing the petitioner's learned Counsel Sri Dwaraknath. We have perused the order and find that it is a regular order passed on merits. It cannot be said that the order dated 11-5-1976 is without jurisdiction or that it was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It is therefore not possible to alter or review that order.
5. Sri Dwaraknath, the petitioner's learned Counsel contends that even though the order dated 11-5-1976 appears to be one on merits, it is essentially and substantially an order summarily dismissing the revision petition In so far as no notice was issued to the other side and the other side was not heard. We are unable to find any substance in this submission, In U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay : 1955CriLJ1410 His Lordship, S.R. Das J. pointed out as follows at page 642.
When the court summarily dismisses an appeal, whether without hearing the accused or his pleader as in the case of a jail appeal, or after hearing the accused or his pleader but before issuing any notice to the respondent, as in an appeal presented by the accused or his pleader, the Court does decide the appeal. It is indeed, a very serious thing to say that Sections 421, 435 or 439 give the Court a discretion not to decide the appeal or revision brought before it and I, for one, am not prepared to countenance and much less encourage such an idea. In my judgment a summary dismissal of an appeal or revision does involve an adjudication by the High Court just as a dismissal after a full hearing; does.
6. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order dated 11-5-1976 is not a final order. Even a summary dismissal at the admission stage of a revision case after due hearing of the petitioner or his counsel is as much a dismissal after full hearing and the order having been pronounced and signed by the Judge, the same cannot be altered or reviewed in view of the express prohibition contained, in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.