R.K. Manisana, J. — In this application under the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner Samir Mazumdar has prayed that he may be released on probation of good conduct. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 16 and 38 of 1980, this Court convicted the petitioner under section 324, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for 11/2 years and a fine of Rs 5000/-. If the fine was realised, it was to be paid to the heirs of one Hari. 2. The question which arises for consideration is whether this Court shall have the juristic ion to entertain the application under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 362 of the Code expressly provides that 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 The word "Judgment" has not been defined in the Code. In 9 Halsbury's Laws of England, 2ml Edition, ,page 260 to 764, it is indicated that judgment in criminal proceedings is the final order in a trial terminating in the convic­tion or acquittal of the accused, but it does not include other orders. This also does not give a Complete meaning of the judgment. In our view, the judgment in criminal proceedings would mean reasons given by a Judge of the grounds of conviction or acquittal. 3. Turning to the present case, for allowing or disallowing the prayer for release of the accused on probation, it requires addition of reasons which would form a part of the reasons already concluded, i.e. it would form a part of the judgment which had already been signed disposing of the appeal. This would amount to alteration of the judgment, not relating to a clerical or arithmetical error. 4. Section 362 is equally applicable to the High Court. Therefore, once the High Court has signed its judgment, it becomes functus officio, and neither the Judge who signed the judgment nor any other Judges of the High Court has any power to review, reconsider or alter it, except for correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. 5. The next question which arises for consideration in whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under sectiot^82 of the Code can review its own order. 5. The next question which arises for consideration in whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under sectiot^82 of the Code can review its own order. In State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra, AIR 1979 SC 87 , the Supreme Court has clearly held that a judgment of the High Court on appeal or revision cannot be reviewed or revised except in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and the inherent power provided under section 4S2 cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which has specifically been prohibited by the Code. This decision has been followed in Sooraj Devi vs. Pyarelal, AIR 1981 SC 736 . In Simarikhia vs. Dolley Mukharjee, AIR 1990 SC 1605 , the Supreme Court has, following the earlier decision, held that the inherent power cannot be exercised by the High Court so as to review its own judgment, 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, rejected.