JUDGMENT Basu, J. : This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for review and/or recalling a judgment and order passed by us in Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1975 on the 27th of January, 1976. 2. The present application relates to Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1975 which was heard analogously with some other matters in which this petitioner was an opposite party. In course of hearing of the matters which were highly contested several points common to all the matters were argued at length. It is stated in the present petition that through inadvertence the question of limitation in respect of Revision No. No. 274 of 1975 was not dealt with by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and no submission was made on that point. While all other rules were discharged the rule in Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1975 was made absolute as it was submitted and as there was no opposition to the submission that the complaint involved in that case was filed beyond the time specified under section 468 Cr. P.C. for filing of complaints to enable the Court to take cognizance thereof. It is stated in that petition that none of the learned Advocates appearing in that case for the different parties drew the attention of the Court to the Act Court to the Act 12 of 1974 (the Economic Offences Inapplicability of Limitation Act, 1974) which provides that the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be inapplicable to certain economic offences. The said Act provides a schedule which saves among others the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that relate to limitation. The present complaint was made in respect of an alleged contravention of the Income tax Act, 1961. It is staled that petitioner's learned Advocate regrets the inadvertant omission to separately deal with the said petition and to place the relevant provisions before the Court. In view of the circumstances, a prayer is made that this Court should exercise its inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and recall the order passed in the said matter and pass order in accordance with the provisions of Act 12 of 1974. 3. Mr. In view of the circumstances, a prayer is made that this Court should exercise its inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and recall the order passed in the said matter and pass order in accordance with the provisions of Act 12 of 1974. 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing to oppose this petition also regretted the inadvertence in not drawing the attention of the Court to the relevant provision. It appears, therefore, that the order passed by us in Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1975 has not taken note of Section 2 of the Act 12 of 1974. It seems, therefore, to be an erroneous decision. 4. The Court, however, feels that it is unable to exercise its inherent power to rectify the mistake under the circumstances. Section 362 of the present Code which corresponds to the section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically provides that save as otherwise provided by this or by any other law for the time being in force no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of the case, shall after or review the same except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. This section has been construed by different courts as laying down that after a judgment has been signed no court can alter or review it except to correct clerical errors. We, therefore, feel that our powers are circumscribed in this matter and we are unable to recall the order which we have already signed. The following decisions may be referred to in this connection. In the matter of (1) Gibbons reported in ILR 14 Calcutta 42, (2) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Dutta reported in AIR 1966 MP 158 , (3) Public Prosecutor v. Debi Reddy reported in AIR 1962 AP 479 , (4) Dahu Raut v. King Emperor reported in 38 CWN 25. (5) Kumar Singh Chhajar and another v. King Emperor reported in 73 IA 199 ; (6) Ram Ballabh v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1962 Patna 417. While considering an app1ication under Article 134 (l) (c) of the Constitution of India in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1970 we had on an earlier occasion discussed at length this aspect of the matter. While considering an app1ication under Article 134 (l) (c) of the Constitution of India in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1970 we had on an earlier occasion discussed at length this aspect of the matter. As the Supreme Court held in the case of (7) Pampa Pathi v. State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1967 SC 286 the inherent power of the High Court cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by a specific provision of the Code. 5. The result is that the petition fails and the same is discharged. Chanda, J. : I agree.