Judgment NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. Heard. 2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21-7-1994 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Session Trial No. 298/1987 rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners to deposit the fines awarded by this Court against them in Crl. Appeal No. 43 of 1993 on the ground that the time for depositing the fine as ordered by the High Court has expired and unless the period is extended by the High Court he has no power to permit them to deposit their fine. In the petition it is also prayed that the period for depositing the fine may be extended by this Hon ble Court in exercise of the power under Section 482, GrPC. 3. The necessary facts for disposal in this case are that the five petitioners alongwith one Yogendra Singh were put on trial before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 298/1987 for the offence under Section 302/149/148/147/324/323, IPC and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. Yogendra Singh was convicted under Section 304 (Part I), IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to suffer further imprisonment for two years. He was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The five petitioners were convicted under Section 304 (Part I) read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Petitioners Nagendra Singh, Pashupati Singh, Munna Singh and aforesaid Yogendra Singh were convicted under Section 148, IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and petitioners Nagendra Singh, Pashupati Singh and Birendra Singh were also convicted under Section 324, IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (sic) Ram Bahal Singh and Munna Singh were convicted under Sections 147 and 323, IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The sentences passed against each of the accused including the five petitioners were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners and aforesaid Yogendra Singh filed the aforesaid Cr. The sentences passed against each of the accused including the five petitioners were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners and aforesaid Yogendra Singh filed the aforesaid Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 1993 and the same was finally disposed of by this Court on 24th March, 1993 by Hon ble Mr. Justice Narinder Singh Rao, who has since retired. The appeal of aforesaid Yogendra Singh was dismissed without any modification whereas appeal of other petitioners were dismissed with some modification. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 304 (Part I) read witn Section 149, IPC was set aside. Similarly, the conviction of petitioners Nagendra Singh, Pashupati Singh, Birendra Singh and aforeraid Yogendra Singh under Section 148 and petitioners Ram Bahal Singh and Munna Singh under Section 147, IPC was also set aside. The conviction of petitioners Nagendra Singh, Pashupati Singh and Birendra Singh under Section 324, IPC and conviction of petitioner Ram Bahal Singh and Munna . Singh under Section 323, IPC was affirmed. The conviction of petitioner Pashpati Singh under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also affirmed. The sentence awarded against petitioners Nagendra Singh, Pashpati Singh and Birendra Singh under Section 324, IPC was reduced to the period already undergone and they were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The sentence of petitioners Ram Bahal Singh and Munna Singh under Section 323, IPC was also reduced and each of them was fined of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentence awarded under Section 27 of the Arms Act to petitioner Pashupati Singh was also reduced to the period already undergone by him. This Court also directed that in case of realisation of fine from the appellants the same should be paid to the widow of the deceased and other injured witnesses. This Court directed the petitioner to deposit the fine in the trial Court by 20th May, 1993 failing which they shall surrender in that Court on 21st May, 1993. This Court further ordered that if they did not deposit their fine or surrender within the time the Trial Court will take immediate steps in getting them arrested for being sent to jail for undergoing their sentence in lieu of their fine. This Court further ordered that if they did not deposit their fine or surrender within the time the Trial Court will take immediate steps in getting them arrested for being sent to jail for undergoing their sentence in lieu of their fine. Admittedly, the petitioners did not deposit their fine within the time as ordered by this Court. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that S. L. P. filed against the aforesaid judgment of this court was dismissed on 24-9-1993 being S. L. P. No. 1275/93. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, they did not deposit the fine due to wrong legal advice and now they are ready to deposit the same and as such the time for depositing the fine may be extended by this Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482, CrPC. According to learned counsel for the petitioners his prayer is not for review or recall the judgment passed by this Court. He only wants modification in the order portion of the judgment fixing time for deposition of fine. In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1961 Pat 138 Baijnath Kurmi and another v. The State as well as a Division Bench Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1964 AP 448 Mirza Saif Ali Khan v. Board of Revenne, Government of Andhra Pradesh and another. 4. From the facts stated above it is evident that learned Single Judge of this Court finally disposed of the appeal and while awarding sentence fixed time for depositing the fines and the fines have not been deposited within the time and a special leave petition filed against the judgment of this Court has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thus the judgment passed by this Court attained finality. 5. The only question is as to whether this Court can review, recall or modify the order, as prayed for no behalf of the petitioner. Section 362, CrPC provides that 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 for final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Section 362, CrPC provides that 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 for final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Thus, from bare reading of the section, it appears that once the Court signs its final order disposing of a case it has not power to alter or review its judgment or final order, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. However, this restriction is subject to any other provision provided in the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 369, of the Code of 1898 corresponds to this provision and the same was subjecr-matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala etc., AIR 1979 SC 87 , wherein it was held that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Coda which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. It was further held that the provision of Section 56-A cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the Code. In AIR 1981 SC 736 Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and another, the Apex Court explained the meaning of the word clerical and arithmetical error occurring in Section 362, CrPC, It was said as follows ; "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, on argument or diputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing." In the case of Sooraj Devi (supra) the earlier view that High Court cannot review or recall its judgment or final order in exercise of its inherent power was again reiterated. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing." In the case of Sooraj Devi (supra) the earlier view that High Court cannot review or recall its judgment or final order in exercise of its inherent power was again reiterated. Thus, it is well-settled that the Court cannot in exercise of power under Section 482, CrPC, review or recall its judgment and only the limited power available to this Court is to correct an error occasioned by an accidental slip or clerical or arithmetical error. 6 In the present case, as stated above, even according to the petitioners the operative part of the judgment has to be modified and the period for depositing the fine is to be extended. The aforesaid prayer cannot be said to be the prayer for removing the clerical or arithmetical error. On the other hand if prayer is allowed that will amount to modification or review of the judgment of this Court, which, in my view is not permissible in exercise of power under Section 482, CrPC. 7. So far the two cases relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same are not helpful to the petitioners for the reasons that the question involves in both the cases was not for review or recalled the judgment but the question was as to whether the direction can be issued or not in favour of the accused persons to run the subsequent sentence concurreutly with previous sentence as provided under Section 397(1), CrPC, 1898 and dealing with that matter it was held that there was no question of either altering or reviewing the judgment of the High Court in breach of the provisions contained under Section 369, CrPC the judgment will stand as it is and the order passed under Section 561-A, IPC could be separate order and complete by itself. Thus, the aforesaid judgment, in my view, does not support the case of the petitioners. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.