JUDGMENT K.K. Chaubey, J. - This application purporting to be under Sections 437 and 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India has been moved for recalling the order dated 14-2-1991, of this Court by which the order dated 28-7-1990 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8202 of 1990 (Ahsan v. State of U.P.) was corrected. 2. Ahsan applied for bail in Crime No. 142 of 1989 under Sections 394/302/34, I.P.C. of Police Station Kandhla, District Muzaffarnagar. It was said that on 28-7-1989 at 10.30 A. M. Man Mohan was counting money at his shop in Grain Mandi of Kandhla town. At that very time, Ahsan, applicant accompanied with one more person, both armed with country made pistol came to the shop. The companion was standing there with country made pistol for watching. The applicant, Ahsan at the point of his country made pistol wanted to snatch money but Man Mohan resisted at which Ahsan fired at him. After robbing money from Man Mohan the applicant and his companion ran away. 3. The bail application came up for hearing before the Court on 28-7-1990. After hearing both the parties, the bail application was disposed of. A bare reading of the order would make it clear that the bail application had been rejected but due to inadvertance of the writer of the order, it was transcribed as under : "Hon'ble Kamlakar Chaube, J. Sun liya gaya. Din ki is ghatna me beech hazar me prarthi dwara mritak par goli chalana kaha gaya hai Patrawali par sam uplabdh sabhi abhilekhon ko dekhne ke uprant ye prarthna patra swikrit kiya jata hai. Prarthi Ahsan Apradh Sankhya 142, 1989 antargat Dhara 394/302/ 34, I.P.C., Thana Kandhla Zila Muzaffarnagar ko panch hazar rupye ke ek niji panchpatra aur 2 pratibhu praiyek ukt aharnashi ke dakhil karne par Mukhya Nyayik Dandaadhikari, Muzaffarnagar ki santushti par zamanat par chhor diya jaye. Prarthi Ahsan Apradh Sankhya 142, 1989 antargat Dhara 394/302/ 34, I.P.C., Thana Kandhla Zila Muzaffarnagar ko panch hazar rupye ke ek niji panchpatra aur 2 pratibhu praiyek ukt aharnashi ke dakhil karne par Mukhya Nyayik Dandaadhikari, Muzaffarnagar ki santushti par zamanat par chhor diya jaye. 28-7-1990 The words "Din ki is ghatna me beech bazar me prarthi dwara mritak par goli chalana kaha gaya hai" clearly go to indicate that the bail application was ordered to be rejected in view of the robbery having taken place in broad day light in a busy market but due to inadvertence or clerical error the judgment writer who wrote the order on the dictation of the Court noted the word `Svikriti' instead of `Asvikriti' in the first paragraph of the order. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant moved an application on 23-1-1991 by which he brought this fact to the notice of the Court. In paragraph 2 of his application it was said, "that it appears that due to inadvertance instead of the word "Asvikriti" dictated by His Lordship the word "Svikriti" was inadvertently mentioned in the order by the Stenographer". 5. On this application notice was sent to the counsel for the applicant, Ahsan and in his presence the application was taken up for disposal. The file of bail application No. 8292 of 1990 was also before the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant Ahsan admitted that on 28-7-1990, the bail application had been rejected. Not only on his saying but also after going through the first paragraph of the bail order, it was clear that the judgment writer had written "Svikrit" instead of "Asvikrit" in this order due to inadvertence. Accordingly, the order dated 28-7-1990 was recalled and the bail application was noted to have been rejected on 14-2-1991. The present application has been filed against that order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ahsan and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued two points. According to him the Court could not review its order allowing the bail application of Ahsan, and secondly, no opportunity was given to the petitioner Ahsan on 14-2-1991 to put his case before the Court. 7. For the appreciation of the first contention it will be pertinent to look Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads : "362. According to him the Court could not review its order allowing the bail application of Ahsan, and secondly, no opportunity was given to the petitioner Ahsan on 14-2-1991 to put his case before the Court. 7. For the appreciation of the first contention it will be pertinent to look Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads : "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 arithmathical error." 8. This shows that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order, disposing of the case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. It means that after disposal of a case, as final order cannot be reviewed or altere l but necessary correction in this order may be made if there is any clerical or arithmetical error. 9. This brings us to the point as to whether by the order dated 14-2-1991 the Court reviewed its final order or simply corrected a clerical error. Learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to Mosst. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee and another, 1990 (27) ACC 428 (SC) in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that inherent power cannot be exercised by a Court so as to review its own judgment which has been clearly barred under Section 362, Cr. P. C. I have gone through this judgment carefully. It does not render any help to the applicant. In fact the Court has not reviewed its order but has simply corrected a clerical error committed by the Judgment writer which was permissible under Section 362, Cr. P. C. As indicated earlier, paragraph 1 of the order clearly goes to show that the bail application was intended to be rejected but by inadvertance of the judgment-writer, the word "Svikrit" was written instead of "Asvikrit". Consequeatly, this error was liable to be corrected. 10. Coming to the second point, it will be sufficient to mention that as per the findings given above, the earlier order dated 22-7-1990 was not reviewed by order dated 14-2-1991. Rather only a clerical error having crept therein was corrected. Consequeatly, this error was liable to be corrected. 10. Coming to the second point, it will be sufficient to mention that as per the findings given above, the earlier order dated 22-7-1990 was not reviewed by order dated 14-2-1991. Rather only a clerical error having crept therein was corrected. This correction was made in presence of the learned counsel for the applicant in any case, as it was simply a case of correction of clerical error, it was not necessary to hear the applicant or his counsel the second contention also fails. 11. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is without merit and is hereby rejected