JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482, Cr. PC has been preferred against the order 3rd May, 1988, by which, the Judicial Magistrate, Bansur, directed to sell the crop, which was with the petitioner on 'Superdginama', and further directed to deposit the sale-proceeds of the crop in the court. 2. For the disposal of this petition, it is necessary to mention here the brief facts of this case. A civil dispute between the parties is pending with regard to Khasra Nos. 222 & 222/1107, situated in Village - Harsora, A complaint was lodged under Section 145 Cr. PC by the SHO, PS - Bansur, on 27th Sept., 1985, before the SDM, Behror with the prayer that there was likelihood of breach of peace between the parties with regard to possession over the aforesaid Khasras and therefore the said land be attached. The learned SDM, vide his order dated 28th Dec. 1985, directed the Tehsildar - Bansur, to attach the aforesaid Khasras and Khasra No. 222/1106. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was filed before the Add. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, who, vide his order dated 1st February, 86, partly allowed the said revision, and the appointment of Receiver with regard to Khasra No. 222 was maintained; and Khasra Nos. 222/1106 & 222/1107, were ordered to be released from attachment. Birbal against this order filed a revision before this Court, which was Civil Revision Petition No. 59/86 and was decided on 20th March, 86, where by, it was dismissed, Consequently, the SDM, Behror directed the Tehsildar - Bansur, vide his order dated 29th March,86, to release from attachment Khasra Nos. 222/2106 and 222/1107. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed Misc. Criminal Petition No. 91/87 in this Court against the order dated 1st February, 1986 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2,Awar which was accepted by this Court on 21st November 86, where in it was ordered by this Court that unless the suit pending between the parties was decreed, non-petitioner Ramswaroop and Birbal could not claim possession. The SDM Behror, on 4th August, 1987 directed the Tehsildar-Bansur to release the aforesaid Khasras of and from attachment and hand over their possession to petitioner Bhagchand. Thus the petitioner received the possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 222, 222/1106 & 222/1107, and should his crop of wheat of Khasra Nos. 222 & 222/1107. The SDM Behror, on 4th August, 1987 directed the Tehsildar-Bansur to release the aforesaid Khasras of and from attachment and hand over their possession to petitioner Bhagchand. Thus the petitioner received the possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 222, 222/1106 & 222/1107, and should his crop of wheat of Khasra Nos. 222 & 222/1107. When the crop riped up, the non-petitioners, Ramswaroop and Birbal, came to the field and started harvesting it. The nephew of the petitioner. Matadeen, lodged a report at PS - Bansur, to this effect, and the SHO, PS - Bansur, started investigation and seized the harvested crop from the possession of non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3. After the seizure, the, petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Bansur, for giving him the said crop on 'Supardginama'. The learned Magistrate on 12th April, 88 passed order forgiving the said crop on 'Supardgi-natna' to the petitioner. In compliance of that order, the crop was handed over to the petitioner by the Tehsildar, Bansur, on 12th April, 1988. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, Bansur, again considered the question of Supurdgi of the said crop, and he, vide the impugned order, ordered on 3rd May, 1988 that the crop be taken back from the petitioner and it be sold in the market and the sale proceeds be deposited in the court. This order has been challenged in this miscellaneous petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that with regard to the disputed land, twice, the parties had come to this Court, and every time the non-petitioners lost their case. The land which was attached under the order of the SDM, was released by this Court and it was handed over to the petitioner. Later on, the petitioner sowed wheat-crop in that filed; and when the crop riped up, the non-petitioners (Nos. 2 & 3) harvested the crop, and again, the matter came before the learned Magistrate, who, vide his order dated 12th April, 1988, handed over the crop to the petitioner on 'Supardgi-nama'; but subsequently, the learned Magistrate vide the impugned order, cancelled his earlier order dated 12th April, 1988 regarding Supardgi and directed the Tehsildar - Bansur, that the crop be taken back from the possession of the petitioner, and that the same be sold in the market and the sale proceeds be deposited in the court. So the learned Magistrate recalled his earlier order for handing over the crop to the petitioner on 'Superdginama' The argument is that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to have recalled his own order dated 12th April, 1988. If the non-petitioner were aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 12th April, 1988 they could have preferred a revision petition against that order, and they should not have moved this Court if permitted. At that time, the non-petitioners did not take any step and kept silent. So when the order dated 12th April, 1988 was not challenged by the non-petitioners, it had become final and the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall his own order; Therefore, the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1988 is an incorrect order argued Mr. Rathore, who, in support of his argument, relied on the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2432 ) . In that case a complaint was filed Under Section 95 IPC, ...between the parties and both the parties had applied for copies of those proceedings. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant had got the copy which was meant for the complaint by signing his name. The complaint also got his copy a few days after eventually. Then, the matter tossed from one Magistrate to another for inquiry and report and ultimately, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Cr.PC Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the Magistrate and filed an application for recalling his earlier order. The Magistrate passed no orders on that application, but he sent the case for inquiry, to another Magistrate. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate recalled the order of the previous Magistrate and ordered taking cognizance of the case and summoned the accused persons. Then the matter went to Supreme Court, and their Lordships observed as under: "There is no provision in Cr.PC empowering a Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him. Inherent powers under Section 561-A are only given to High Court and unlike Section 151, CPC, subordinate criminal courts have no inherent powers. 4. In the case of Sarkar v. MRT and Special Maintenance and Ors. Inherent powers under Section 561-A are only given to High Court and unlike Section 151, CPC, subordinate criminal courts have no inherent powers. 4. In the case of Sarkar v. MRT and Special Maintenance and Ors. 1980 Cr.LJ 948 , it was observed as under: "There is no provision in the Code empowering a Magistrate to review or recall an order passed by him Section 482 empowers only the High Court to exercise inherent powers in appropriate circumstances mentioned therein. In these circumstances law does not permit a Magistrate to recall a judicial order even the Magistrate feels that there are justifiable grounds for the same. If a Magistrate is permitted to recall a judicial order against the provisions of statute the effect may be disastrous and High Court can correct such illegality in its revisional jurisdiction apart from the exercise of inherent powers. 5. Mr. Rathore also argued that Section 362, Cr.PC empowers the court to correct judgment or final order. According to this section, no court where 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. 6. In the case of Sooraj Devi v. Pyarelal and Anr. ( 1981 (1) SCC 500 ) , , Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under: "A clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the court. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery an argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. Keeping in view the clarification of clerical and arithmetical errors, Section 362, Cr.PC does not, and in the present case, did not empower the Magistrate to pass the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1988. In the impugned order, there is no clerical or arithmetical error Even supposing that this order is not a final order, in that case, also Section 362 does not apply and there is no question of correcting the order. In the impugned order, there is no clerical or arithmetical error Even supposing that this order is not a final order, in that case, also Section 362 does not apply and there is no question of correcting the order. If this order is treated to be final order disposing of the case, then too, according to this section, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to correct his previous order, because there was no clerical or arithmetical error in the order dated 12th April, 1988. So, in both the circumstances, Section 362 does not apply for recalling a previous order. What is the nature of the present impugned order, as to be seen. The learned Magistrate in his previous order dated 12th April, 1988 had directed to hand over the crop to the petitioner on 'Supardginama'. Handing over the crop on "Supardginama' meant that the petitioner would produce the crop as and when require.) by the court as such. He was bound to produce the crop, given. to him on 'Supardginama' and if he would fail to produce it, he was bound to deposit the price of the crop in the court, as mentioned in the 'Supardginama'. So, the purpose of the 'Superdginama' was to save the crop from: being damaged. If the attached crop would have remained with the police or with the Receiver and no order was passed with regard to that crop, then, the chances would have been of its being damaged after some years, because, certainly the case would have taken years to come to an end, and the crop would have remained of no use. So, the crop which was given on 'Supardgi-cama' to the petitioner, would not have remained the same otherwise, that is to say, at the time of disposal of the case after years. In such circumstances, the property is worth deteriorating damaging, the proper course is to dispose of the property that very moment and deposit the amount in the court, and the sale-price would be found entitled to receive it at the time of the disposal of the suit. In such circumstances, the property is worth deteriorating damaging, the proper course is to dispose of the property that very moment and deposit the amount in the court, and the sale-price would be found entitled to receive it at the time of the disposal of the suit. So, in this case, the impugned order did not mean taking back the crop, which was given to the petitioner on 'Superdginama' and handing it over to the non-petitioners Nos 2 & 3, but the order was that the crop handed over to the petitioner on 'Superdginama' be sold in the market, and the sale-proceeds be deposited is the court. The intention of the court was that in the end, the party, who was entitled to get the crop, should get the sale-price of the said crop. The idea of the court was that if the crop was not sold, then. it would be damaged and would fetch much lesser price than which it could have fetched when it was attached, or when the court ordered to sell it out. So in all circumstances, the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 3rd May, 1988 cannot be said to be an illegal or incorrect order. In the interest of both the parties, and in order to save the crop from being damaged and to fetch a good price of the said crop by selling it at a proper time, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1988 and this was a correct order. Therefore, the petitioner should not have any grievance against passing of this order. The learned Magistrate also passed order that the sale proceeds be deposited in the court. The sale-price was not ordered to be given to non petitioners Nos. 2 & 3, but it was ordered to be deposited in the court, so that, at the end of the trial of the case, the party which would be found to be entitled to get the crop, may receive the sale-price. Thus, there has no injustice done to the petitioner. 2 & 3, but it was ordered to be deposited in the court, so that, at the end of the trial of the case, the party which would be found to be entitled to get the crop, may receive the sale-price. Thus, there has no injustice done to the petitioner. In order to save the crop from being damaged, the order for selling the crop was passed by the learned Magistrate and that too in the interest of the petitioner, otherwise, after some years, the said crop would be of no use, and if the court directed the petitioner to produce the crop which was given to him on 'Superdginama', he could not submit it; and in that case, he was bound to pay the price of the crop, which was mentioned in the 'Superdginarna' when it was given to him. So, otherwise, unnecessarily, the petitioner would have to bear the loss by paying the amount of the crop which was in his possession. So, the order dated 3rd May, 1988, is in the interest of the petitioner, and he should not have any grievance about it. 7. In view of my above discussion, I hold that as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sooraj Devi (supra) and by the Patna High Court in the case of Sarkar (supra), I am in full agreement with the principles enunciated in these cases that the learned Magistrate had no power to recall his previous order. The impugned order is not found to be an incorrect order. I, therefore, am not inclined to interfere in the said order. 8. Consequently, the petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC, is here by dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******