J. N. CHAUDHNRI, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is under sections 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 15. 1. 85 in Case No. S. 355/84 under section 144 of the said Code. ( 2 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the case was dropped by an order of the learned Magistrate concerned on 9. 1. 85, and that thereafter, by the impugned order dated 15. 1. 85 the case was revived. He has submitted that since the case was dropped, the learned Magistrate after 9. 1. 85 became functus officio and that he acted without jurisdiction in purporting to revive the case on 15. 1. 85. In support of his contention, he has cited the case reported in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, where the Supreme Court has laid down that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering a Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him and that the inherent powers are only vested with the High court. The Supreme Court held that on the facts of that case, the learned Magistrate having become functus officio, had absolutely no jurisdiction to review or recall the order, dismissing the complaint in that case and the remedy of the respondent, was to move Sessions Judge or High Court in revision. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners has also cited the case reported in Banka Sahu and Anr. v. Pratap Ch. Das and others2, wherein it was held that the order dropping proceeding under Section 145 (5) of the said Code is a final order disposing of a case within the meaning of Section 362 of the said Code, and that once such an order has been passed, the learned Magistrate cannot alter or review the same except with regard to any clerical or arithmetical error. The order in that case restoring the proceeding, which had earlier been dropped, was without jurisdiction and in flagrant violation of the provisions of section 362 of the said Code. The order reviving the proceeding dropped earlier was set aside in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the said Code. The order in that case restoring the proceeding, which had earlier been dropped, was without jurisdiction and in flagrant violation of the provisions of section 362 of the said Code. The order reviving the proceeding dropped earlier was set aside in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the said Code. ( 4 ) THE learned advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party No. , 1 has submitted that on 15. 1. 85, both the parties filed petitions stating that the paddy in dispute had been seized and prayed for return of the same. He also submitted that order dated 9. 1. 85 by which the case was dropped, was passed only on hearing the present petitioner and was an ex-parte order, since no notice had been served upon his client, the opposite party No. 1 herein (the petitioner in the said proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. ). The orders dated 1. 12. 84, 8. 1. 85, 9. 1. 85 and 15. 1. 85 are set out below: 1. 12. 84 Seen petition u/s. 144 Cr. P. C. refer it to 0/c Haripal P. 5. for enquiry and report by 27 1. 85. 8. 1. 85 Case put up by Sd!- B. Mukherjee petition by 0. Ps. and filed petition praying for dropping the case. Put up on 9. 1. 85. 19. 1. 85 0. P. Sri Harendra Nath Pal present. Heard Id. lawyer on behalf of the 0. Ps. Seen necessary documents produced by him by firisti. The case is dropped. Sd/- B. Mukherjee 15. 1. 85 Case put up by petition by both the parties stating that the paddy has been seized. And pray for return of the same. Considering urgency of the issue, the case is revived. Both parties will appear before this Court on 25. 1. 85 with their relevant documents. Meanwhile ask for a report from J. D. R. 0. Haripal. Issue a reminder for police report by 25. 1. 85. ( 5 ) IN my view, the learned Magistrate became functus officio after passing the order dated 9. 1. 85 by which the case was dropped. If the opposite party No. 1 herein was aggrieved by that order, he should have moved either the Sessions Court or the High Court in revision, which, admittedly, he has not. The order dated 9. 1. 1. 85 by which the case was dropped. If the opposite party No. 1 herein was aggrieved by that order, he should have moved either the Sessions Court or the High Court in revision, which, admittedly, he has not. The order dated 9. 1. 85 has not been set aside by any superior court. The fact that both the parties may have applied to the learned Magistrate on 15. 1. 85 relating to the seized paddy, cannot by any means invest the learned Magistrate with a jurisdiction which he had lost as a result of the order, which he had passed on 9. 1. 85. It was not within his power to revive a case after dropping it as he has purported to do, in view of the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. Even though on 9. 1. 85 the case was dropped ex-parte, since the opposite party No. 1 was not heard on that occasion, still the fact remains that the case was dropped and the said order dropping the case has not been set aside by the superior Court. ( 6 ) AS a result, the impugned order dated 15. 1. 85 cannot be allowed to stand, as the same has been passed without jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate. I accordingly set aside the said order dated 15. 1. 85 and quash the proceedings in this case which have taken place as a result of the said order dated 15. 1. 85. The question of the rights of the parties relating to the seized paddy is left open by this order and the parties are at liberty to take such proceedings in respect thereof as they may be advised. ( 7 ) THE application thus succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. ( 8 ) SINCE the Rule has been made absolute, the application, which was filed in Court on 8. 2. 85 for vacation and/or variation and/or modification of the interim order passed by this Court on 22. 1. 85 at the time when the Rule was issued, stands rejected. ( 9 ) LET the records be sent below forthwith if they have already arrived, along with this order by Special Messenger at the cost of the petitioners. Application allowed. .