J. K. MATHUR, J. Six accused including Tribhuwan were convicted for various offences including [one punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad, on 1-5-75. All the six accused preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence in the High Court at Allahabad through Shri Keshav Sahai, Advocate. It, however, appears that the appeal was subsequently transferred to the Lucknow Bench for disposal. 2. The judgment itself shows that at Lucknow no counsel appeared for the appellants and notices were, therefore, sent to all the appellants asking them to engage another lawyer for the hearing of the appeal. Notices sent to the accused-appellant Tribhuwan were returned with the report that he was not found at home and that his address was not known. The Honble Judge hearing this appeal, however, proceeded to hear it on behalf of appellant Tribhuwan also saying that his role was similar to that of all other appellants except for the offence under Section 147, of the Indian Penal Code and that they had carefully gone through the record with reference to his particular defence in addition to having the advantage o I hearing the arguments of the two Advocates who were appearing on behalf of the other accused. After hearing, the appeal was dismissed by this Court on 31-7-84. 3. On 16-8-84 appellant-applicant Tribhuwan appeared through his counsel and moved an application for setting aside the judgment and for being - permitted to be heard through a counsel in the appeal. According to him after having been released on bail he had gone out and took up an appointment at Jullandhar. This fact was known to his sureties. No attempt was made either to send the notice to him or to his sureties with the result that he could not appear in the court and get his appeal argued. In this case where he has been awarded imprisonment for life he had a right to address his appeal and the order passed against him without hearing him is liable to be set aside. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The right to be heard in a criminal appeal is a right statutorily re cognised by Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The right to be heard in a criminal appeal is a right statutorily re cognised by Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even other wise the courts have extended this right even to situations where any persons right is likely to be affected by a decision even taken by the administrative authorities. 6. Any order passed without hearing is patently against the tenents of natural justice. In a case like the present one where the decision relates to confirmation of a sentence of imprisonment for life denial of the right to be heard his at the very root of the decision. 7. The only objection raised on behalf of the State was that Sec tion 362, Cr. P. C. bars any review or alteration of a judgment pronounced by a criminal court and this bar applies even to the High Courts. As a result of this, it was urged that the inherent powers cannot be used to recall an order passed by this court, would have been the nature of the circumstances in which such an order was passed. 8. Section 482, Cr. P. C. recognises the existence of inherent powers in High Courts. However, the proposition that no inherent powers can be used against explicit statutory provisions cannot be disputed. In case, Section 362, Cr. P. C. explicitly forbids recalling of an order passed in the circumstances aforesaid, Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be taken recourse to for overriding the provisions of Section 362, Cr. P. C. However, Section 362, Cr. P. C. runs as follows: "362. 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. " 9. This provision forbids altering or review of any judgment or final order, disposing of a case, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. 10. The connotation of the term review when used in the context of reconsideration by the same court which passed the original order are well settled in the law. " 9. This provision forbids altering or review of any judgment or final order, disposing of a case, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. 10. The connotation of the term review when used in the context of reconsideration by the same court which passed the original order are well settled in the law. When because of any material not having been considered or for any other mistake the court finds that the judgment or the order pro nounced by the Judge it incorrect, it can review that judgment and rectify the mistake. This term is used essentially to correct judgments or orders if circumstances brought before the court show that there was a mistake within the judgment. 11. On the other hand the recalling of a judgment is an entirely diffe rent concept and if the judgment is found to have been given under the circumstances that render the very existence of such a judgment violative against mandatory provisions of law or lack of jurisdiction, such judgment or order may be repplled to obliterate it in its entirely. Such a power to recall may exist independence of lack of power to review. When a judgment has been pronounced confirming a mans guilt in a heinous crime without having afforded an opportunity to him, such a judgment run counter to every known principle of law and has to be done away with totally. Such a power to recall an order does not meet any obstruction from the provisions of Section 362, Cr. P. C. 12. Section 362, Cr. P. C. has to be so interpreted with a view to see that this operation does not result in injustice patent and clear. 13. The power to recall a judgment in such a situation has been held to be available to the High Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State, Full Bench decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court reported in 1982 Cr LJ 297. Relying upon the decision of Madras and Calcutta High Courts it was held that where the conditions laid down by law as precedent and requisite to the hearing of the case are not observed, the court acts without jurisdiction and its order is, therefore, void abinitio and the case can be reheard and that such rehearing would not be barred by Section 369, Cr. P. C. This corresponds to Section 362 of the present Code. 14. In this case a revision was also filed, decided in absence of the revisionist and the question whether such an order can be recalled and revision reheard was under consideration. The Full Bench answered accordingly in affirmative. 15. In the case of Deepak Thanwardas Balwani v. State of Maharashtra and another, 1985 Cr. LJ 231 also it was held that an order has been passed without hearing the party, the courts have inherent jurisdiction to rehear the case under the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. C. 16. Rajasthan High Court also in a Full Bench decision in the case of Habu v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1987 Raj 83 found that the power of review and recall are distinct from each other and that the pro visions of Section 362, Cr. P. C. did not prevent the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to recall an order passed without hearing. In this case also an appeal was decided in absence of the appellant and his counsel and question referred to the Full Bench was in respect of the power to recall such an order in exercise of the powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 17. Considering all these decisions the only inescapable conclusion is that the appeal to the extent it was decided without hearing applicant Tribhuwan was not validly decided and the decision in the appeal to the extent it decides the case against the applicant is liable to be recalled. 18. The application is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the decision dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant Tribhuwan is hereby recalled and shall not be operative against him. He shall be at liberty to argue it. 19. Let the appeal be listed in the last week of August, 1991 for disposal. Application allowed. .