Order.- After acquitting the accused of the offence of dacoity in respect of ground-nut bags, the Sessions Judge ordered that the sale proceeds of 15 bags of ground-nut, seized from his possession be paid to P.W. 12 and the balance of the sale proceeds be confiscated to the Government. State’s appeal against the acquittal was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 18th. November, 1969. However on 21st November, 1969 the High Court ordered that the sale proceeds of (all the) 44 bags of ground-nut be paid to the complainant P.W. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the High Court, P.W. 12 filed this petition which is now under consideration. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (P.W. 12) contended that the learned Sessions Judge observed in his judgment that the ground-nut bags seized from the possession of P.W. 12 were unidentifiable and rightly ordered that the sale proceeds of 15 bags of ground-nut be paid to P.W. 12. Before the High Court, the fact that 15 bags of ground-nut were seized from the possession of P.W. 12, was not stated and the High Court without issuing notice to and hearing P.W. 12, reversed the order of the Sessions Judge regarding the disposal of property, with regard to which the offence of dacoity was alleged to have been committed and ordered return of the entire sale proceeds to the complainant P.W. 11. The order passed by the High Court under section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, was vitiated in law and it should therefore be modified. In support of the above contentions, the learned Counsel Sri Narasimhacharya, relied upon the decision in Stale Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar1. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for P.W. 11 both contended that the order passed by the High Court may be a wrong order, but however wrong it may be, the High Court now cannot review its own order. In support of those arguments, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in The Public Prosecutor v. Devireddy Nagi Reddy2, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3. 4. In support of those arguments, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in The Public Prosecutor v. Devireddy Nagi Reddy2, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sankatha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3. 4. In the impugned order dated 21st November, 1969 passed by the High Court, I do not find anything to indicate that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that out of 44 bags of ground-nut seized by the police during investigation, 15 bags of ground-nut were seized from the possession of P.W. 12. If that fact was brought to the notice of the Court, perhaps the order to the extent of the value of 15 bags, out of 44 bags, would have been otherwise. Admittedly no notice was served on P.W.12, nor was he heard before the impugned order was passed by the High Court. The order passed without notice to and hearing P.W. 12 who was the person affected by the impugned order, is vitiated, in law. In State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar1, R and V handed over 21 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000 each to K, for the criminal purpose of duplication. In the course of investigation of the case under sections 420, 406 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, against K, the Police seized the currency notes in question from the possession of State Bank of India, which had received them in the normal course of its business without knowledge or suspicion of their having been involved in commission of offence. In the proceedings that followed in connection with that case, K was acquitted and the Sessions Court directed the return of the currency notes to the Bank. In appeal to the High Court the order of acquittal was set aside and K was convicted of the offence under sections 420, 406 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The High Court on an application made to it by R and V ordered the currency notes to be handed over to R and V without notice to the State Bank of India. Challenging the correctness of the order passed by the High Court, an appeal was laid to the Supreme Court. The High Court on an application made to it by R and V ordered the currency notes to be handed over to R and V without notice to the State Bank of India. Challenging the correctness of the order passed by the High Court, an appeal was laid to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court it Was contended on behalf of the State Bank of India that the High Court had reversed the order of Sessions Court without giving a notice to it and without giving an opportunity to it for being heard. The appeal was opposed on the ground that there was no provision in Criminal Procedure Code, to give notice in such proceeding to the party, who would be affected by the order. Dealing with those contentions, the Supreme Court with approval quoted the following principles laid down in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works1and Ridge v. Baldwin2. “The power to demolish a building was held subject to a qualification repeatedly recognised that no man shall be deprived of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard”. “Although there are no positive words in a statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature”. Applying the above principles the Supreme Court held that the High Court was bound to give notice to the appellant before reversing the order of the Sessions Judge and directing the disposal of the property under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, and as no such notice was given, the order was vitiated, in law. 5. The facts of the instance case are almost similar. P.W. 12 from whose possession 15 bags of ground-nut were seized, stated that they were his own and that he did not receive them from any of the accused charged in the dacoity case. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment observed that 15 bags of ground-nut seized from the possession of P.W. 12 were incapable of being identified as the ground-nut bags belonging to P.W. 11 and involved in the offence of dacoity. No notice was given by the High Court to P.W. 12 before the order of the Sessions Judge was reversed by the High Court. No notice was given by the High Court to P.W. 12 before the order of the Sessions Judge was reversed by the High Court. I, therefore, hold that principles of natural justice have been violated in this case by not issuing notice to and hearing P.W. 12 before the impugned order was passed by the High Court. The impugned order is therefore vitiated in law. 6. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court can modify its own order. Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure, Code reads as follows: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” Since no express power to review its own judgment is granted by the Criminal Procedure Code to the High Court, it is now well settled that the High Court has no such power to review its judgment, that is the contention which is raised by both the learned Counsel. The lack of power to review its own order applies only to final orders, which are in the nature of judgment or, which have the force of Judgments. When an order is passed by the High Court after hearing both the parties, it amounts to a judgment or partakes the nature of judgment. Such judgment cannot be reviewed. However there are well-recognised exceptions to the above principle. Under section 561-A the High Court possesses inherent power to right a wrong occasioned to any party by an act of Court, and to act in a manner to secure the ends of justice. In exercise of such power the High Court can order restoration of property wrongfully received front one party and handed over to another in an illegal order. In the present case 1 here is no doubt that 15 bags of ground-nut were seized from the possession of P.W. 12. who claimed to be the owner thereof and who further claimed that he did not receive them from any of the accused involved in the offence of dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge also observed in his judgment that they are incapable of identification as stolen goods. who claimed to be the owner thereof and who further claimed that he did not receive them from any of the accused involved in the offence of dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge also observed in his judgment that they are incapable of identification as stolen goods. In those circumstances, I am of opinion that under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to secure the ends of justice it is necessary to modify the impugned order, which is vitiated in law. I accordingly order that out of the sale proceeds of 44 bags of ground-nut seized by the police, the value of 15 bags of ground-nut be paid to P.W. 12. Regarding the sale proceeds of the rest of the bags, the order of the High Court dated 18th November, 1969, will stand. No order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case. A.B.K. ----- Petition allowed.