JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code presented by Smt. Pyari Bai stating that her Criminal Revision No. 488/74 was disposed by this Court on 29.1.1979. and she was convicted and sentenced under Section 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code. It was further stated that she is a widow having five minor children. She has prayed that she has compromised with the complainant so she may be permitted to compound the offence and after verification of the compromise she may be acquitted. 2. She has also presented an application under Section 4 read with Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act and prayed that she may be given the benefit of probation. 3. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. On behalf of the applicant it is vehemently urged that for securing the ends of justice this Court can accord permission to compromise and acquit the applicant and in the alternative in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court may give the benefit of the probation to the applicant. It was urged that this Court has plenary powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and those powers can be invoked even after the decision of Criminal Revision No. 488/74 by this Court wherein conviction has been maintained and sentence has been awarded. The learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court, Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 S.C. 444 . 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand urged that the decision of this Court in Revision Petition has become final and the same cannot be reviewed, or altered by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, State of Orissa v. Ram Chander, AIR 1979 S.C. 87 . 6. The question that emerges for consideration is as to whether after pronouncement of the judgment by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition can this Court review or alter the judgment after taking notice of the alleged compromise or can give, the benefit of probation? 6. The question that emerges for consideration is as to whether after pronouncement of the judgment by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition can this Court review or alter the judgment after taking notice of the alleged compromise or can give, the benefit of probation? It is true that at the time of the hearing of the revision petition, this Court was competent to take into notice the fact of compromise if any, arrived at between the complainant and the accused. This Court was also competent under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act to deal with the case under Section 4 of the said Act. After the pronouncement of the final order by this Court, it is not open to this Court to give the benefit of probation or take notice of any subsequent compromise. There is a finality attached to the judgment of this Court. The proper stage for the present application was when the revision petition was heard but after the revision petition having been disposed of, in my opinion, the present application is misconceived, Ratan Lal's case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable on facts. In Ratan Lal's case the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court did not take into the consideration the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, the matter was urged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court allowed the Special Appeal and send the case back to the High Court after setting aside the order of the High Court and directing it to make an order under Section 6 of the Act and if it so desired to remand it to Sessions Court for doing so. The Supreme Court, however, did not deal with the question that on an application under Section 11 of the Act, after the disposal of the revision petition the High Court could examine the question though it has been observed in para 7 that the High Court was competent to consider the question when the revision petition came before it under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the revisional Court can give the benefit of Probation when the case comes before it or that when the appeal or revision is heard, the appellate or revisional Court can extend the benefit of probation. In my opinion, the question stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Agrawals (supra) wherein it has been observed that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against the judgment as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Their Lordship of Supreme Court examined the provision contained in Section 369 of the old Criminal Procedure Code and its corresponding provision in the present Code is Section 362. 7. Under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it is provided that "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". 8. Looking to the present Section 362 this provision has embodied within its purview not only judgment but also final order and correction can be made not only of clerical error but also arithmetical error which was not there in the earlier provision of Section 369. Section 362 applies to all Courts including the High Court. 9. In view of the provisions of Section 362, Section 482 cannot be invoked as has been held in the above recent decision of the Supreme Court. 10. In the result, the applications, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******