V. GOPALA SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated 3-11-1983 passed by the Executive Megistrate, Barhampur, in Misc Case No. 211 of 1979 reviewing his earlier order dated 27-8-82, declaring the possession of the disputed lands with the present petitioners and directing the Revenue Inspector of Srichandanpur to deliver possession of the same to them. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present revision may be briefly stated thus: The present petitioners are the second party members 1, 4 and 2 respectively, whereas the opposite parties are the first party members in Misc. Case No. 211 of 1979, a proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C initiated on 20. 11-1979 in respect of the disputed lands. On 9-8-1982 in Mutation Appeal No. 5 of 1981, the S. D. O. , Berhampur, ordered that the disputed lands be mutated in favour of the petitioners. On 27-8-1982 the learned Magistrate passed orders declaring the possession of the disputed lands with the second party members (the present petitioners) and directing the Revenue Inspector, Srichandanpur, to deliver the possession of the disputed lands to the petitioners. In persuance of the said orders, the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the petitioners on 22-9-1982. On 7-10-1982, the amount of Rs. 2,723/- deposited by the reciever towards the lease amount of the disputed lands was directed to be refunded to the second party members. On 30-3-1983 the order of mutation dated 9-8-1982 passed by the S. D. O was reversed by the R. D. C. On 3-11-1983, an application filed by the first party (the present opposite parties) the learned Magistrate reviewed his earlier order passed on 27-8-1982, and revived the Misc. Case No. 211 of 1979 and re-attached the disputed lands under section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. Being aggrieved by that order the present revision is filed. ( 3 ) THE relevant-portion of the impugned order is quoted below: TI The ex-parte order passed on 27-8-82 are set aside Perused the petition of 1st party. I am satisfied that the disputes still continuous (sic), and there is every possibility and likelihood of breach of peace if immediate remedial action is not taken. I, therefore, hereby attach the disputed land mentioned below and both the parties are hereby restrained to enter upon the case lands VIS 146 (1) Cr. I am satisfied that the disputes still continuous (sic), and there is every possibility and likelihood of breach of peace if immediate remedial action is not taken. I, therefore, hereby attach the disputed land mentioned below and both the parties are hereby restrained to enter upon the case lands VIS 146 (1) Cr. P. C. The R. I. Srichandanpur is appointed as Receiver TI ( 4 ) THE point of law, that arises for consideration in this revision, is whether the learned Magistrate was legally empowered to review the final orders passed on 27-8-82 in M. C. No. 211 of 1979, a proceeding under section 145 Cr. PC. and revive the very same proceedings. ( 5 ) SECTION 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides thus: p362 Court not to alter Judgment 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. TI In Kailash Chandra Panigrahi v. Gayaram patel1, this Court held that once a proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. , has been closed on the ground that there was no likelihood of breach of the peace, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to revive the closed case. Relying on that decision, in Ranka Sahu alias Ranka nidhi Sahu v. Pratap Chandra Dos and others2, this Court reiterated the proposition of law that there can be no doubt that the order dropping a proceeding under section 145 (5) of the Code is a final order disposing of a case within the meaning of section 362, Cr P. C. and that once such an order has been passed, the Court cannot alter or review the same except with regard to any clerical or arithmatical error. In Shankatha Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh3 the sole point that came up for determination was whether the learned Sessions Judge could set aside his first order dated 30-11-1956, dismissing the appeal, when neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared, and could order the re-hearing of the appeal on 2-7-1957 on an application filed by the appellant on 17-12-1956 praying for a rehearing of the appeal on merit. On a consideration of sections 369 and 424 of the old Code (which correspond to sections 362 and 387 of the new Code), the Supreme Court held that the appellate court is not to alter or review the judgment once signed except for the purpose of correcting a clerical error and so in that case found that the Sessions Judge could not set aside his first order dismissing the appeal. In State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Agarwal4 the Supreme Court observed that section 369 of the old Code is general in its application and prohibits all courts from altering or reviewing its judgment when once it has signed it and it applies to the judgments on appeal by the High Court as well and accordingly held that the High Court has no power to review it own appellate judgment and that section 561-A of the old Code cannot be invoked for enabling the court to review its own judgment on appeal as such review is specifically prohibited by section 369. In view of the above decisions cited by Mr S. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the learned Magistrate had no power to review the final orders passed in a 145 Cr. P. C. proceeding. ( 6 ) IN the present case, admittedly the learned Magistrate bad passed orders in Criminal Misc. Case. No. 211 of 1979, on 27-8-82, declaring the possession of the disputed lands with the second party members and directing delivery of the possession of the same in their favour. In pursuance of the said order, possession of the disputed lands was delivered to the second party members on 22-9- 1982. Hence the learned Magistrate acted illegally when he passed the impugned order setting aside the earlier final orders passed by him and restoring the previous proceeding in Misc. Case No. 211 of 1979 to file and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. However, it is still open to the learned Executive Magistrate to start a proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. afresh in accordance with law, if the fresh material placed before him would justify such a course. ( 7 ) I n the result, I hereby set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 3-11-1983 and accordingly allow the revision. Petition allowed .