A. PASUYAT,J, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this application under Sections 397,401 and 482 read with section 432 (l) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Codet), for modification of order passed by learned Session Judge, Cuttack. ( 2 ) A birds eye view of the factual position is necessary. Petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Section 15 (b) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with section 85 (1) (a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. Allegations arc that on 19-5-1990, he was found to be in unauthorised possession of gold biscuits of foreign origin. Petitioner was arrested and produced before learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack who rejected the bail application filed by him, with the observation that investigation was still in progress, and considering nature of offence alleged, there was likelihood of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. Learned Session Judge by order dated 28-5-1290 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 363 of 1990 directed release of petitioner on bail on deposit of cash security of rupees one lakh in the court of learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack, and on executing a bond to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate to the effect that he shall appear on each and every date in the court personally and shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required during investigation. It was specified in the order that cash security was liable for forfeiture if the petitioner violates any of the conditions indicated in the order. Undisputedly, petitioner has deposited cash security, and is on bail. By an application sty led to be one under Section 439 (1) (b) of the Code, petitioner wanted modification of conditions imposed. It was his case that cash which he had deposited was borrowed from several persons, who are insisting on repayment, and therefore, he may be permitted to furnish properly security and cash security may be released. ( 3 ) LEARNED Session Judge was of the view that the view expressed by Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Baneries and another v. The State of Bihar, was to the effect that cash security should not be insisted upon. ( 3 ) LEARNED Session Judge was of the view that the view expressed by Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Baneries and another v. The State of Bihar, was to the effect that cash security should not be insisted upon. He held that order of cash security will cause undue harassment to the petitioner, and therefore, directed him to furnish bond of Rupees Five lakhs with two sureties, to the satisfaction of learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack for release of the cash security. He also directed that bailers should be preferably of his jurisdiction, whose duty shall be to produce the petitioner on each adjourned date, failing which the entire bail amount was to be recovered from the bailors. Petitioner has filed the present application for modification of conditions, on the ground that they were stringent, and he was not capable of furnishing security of amounts as directed as condition precedent to refund of cash security. ( 4 ) DURING hearing of application, notice was issued to petitioner to show cause as to why order passed by learned Session Judge modifying conditions imposed in order dated 28-5-1990, shall not be set aside. Petitioner has shown cause. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner urged that a combined reading of section 437 (3) and 440 (1) of the Code makes it clear that purpose for while security is prescribed is to ensure attendance of petitioner, and should not be excessive. According to him, facts of the case show that petitioner has no intention of fleeing from justice, as is evident from his detention under provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short the COFEPOSA Act ). Petitioner is a permanent resident of Berhampur having fixed assets. In several decisions, several High Courts and apex Court have deprecated practice of demand of cash security. Section 439 (1) (b) of the Code authorizes Session Judge to vary conditions imposed, and there is nothing illegal in the modification of order passed by Session Judge. It was alternatively submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that even it is held that Session Judge had no power to modify an order this Court may do so in exercise of powers under Section 401 of the Code. It was alternatively submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that even it is held that Session Judge had no power to modify an order this Court may do so in exercise of powers under Section 401 of the Code. Learned counsel for Union of India however, submitted that petition is misconceived, because after having complied with the conditions imposed by order granting bail, modification in terms is not permissible. In the pretexi of modification, entire texture of order is sought to be varied. ( 6 ) I shall first deal with power of learned Session Judge to modify conditions imposed. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to section 419 (1) (b) of the Code on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner in his attempt to justify exercise of jurisdiction by learned Session Judge. Relevant portions of the PFQ Vision read as follows: 439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail- (1) A High Court or a Court of Session May direct file:// (a) xx xx xx (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. A bare look at the provision makes it clear that power to set aside or modify any condition can be exercised by High Court or Court or Session, in respect of conditions imposed by a Magistrate. The same has no application when the Court which passed order seeks to modify its own order. Modification of order can be by a higher forum. Session Judge has no inherent power, and he had no jurisdiction to review his own order. In the garb of modification what has been done in a review or the order, which is not permissible. Therefore, order passed by learned Session Judge fixing up property security in lieu of cash security, with a direction to refund the latter, is without jurisdiction. In the garb of modification what has been done in a review or the order, which is not permissible. Therefore, order passed by learned Session Judge fixing up property security in lieu of cash security, with a direction to refund the latter, is without jurisdiction. Further question is whether it is desirable to modify conditions imposed by learned Session Judge. As mentioned above, petitioner has complied will terms of order of bail passed by learned Session Judge on the first occasion and has been released on bail on furnishing cash security. At this stage, it is not desirable to refund cash security by accepting property security. Decisions on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner, related to a stage prior to release on bail. It is not therefore, necessary to proliferate this judgment with their citations. They do not throw any light on the issue involved in the case at hand. If petitioner was really aggrieved by conditions imposed or considered them to be harsh, it was open to him to move this Court. for interference. That was not done and petitioner complied with the conditions. It is therefore, not desirable to change any of the conditions imposed. ( 7 ) IN that view of me matter, order passed by learned Session Judge in Criminal Misc. Case No. 268 of 1991 dated 8-9-1991 is set aside, and that in Criminal Misc. Case No. 363 or 1990 dated 28-51990 is restored. ( 8 ) CRIMINAL Revision is disposed of accordingly. Revision allowed 1. AIR. 1985 S. C. 1666.