JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This is an application for review of my order dated 30.9.1964 in Criminal Revision No. 1579 of 1963. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 3. In the affidavit filed along with the application, the only ground on which the review is sought is that the learned counsel was busy on the date fixed for the hearing of the revision in performing religious rites in Pitri Paksh and had sent a letter to one of his colleagues to mention this fact in Court but as his colleague could not be found out, the letter remained undelivered and no mention could be made in the Court and hence the revision was dismissed without any hearing. It is obvious that this can hardly be a ground for review of the order. 4. In Raj Narain v. The State 1959 A.L.J. 56, the majority view of the Full Bench was that the High Court has power to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and rehear the same in cases falling under one or the other of the three conditions mentioned in Section 561-a, Cr.P.C. namely, (1) for the purpose of giving effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court; (iii) for otherwise securing the ends of justice. 5. In that case it was observed by Hon'ble Chaturvedi, J. that "Section 561-A thus would not authorise this Court to rehear a case where the applicant or appellant was not heard due to some fault of his or of his counsel." 6. There is no force in this application and it is rejected.