JUDGMENT - DAS CHANDRASHEKHARA T.K., J.:---This is an application moved by the accused. His grievance is that the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, dated 24th October, 1994 was reviewed suo motu and cancelled by him by his order dated 9th November, 1994. 2. The accused was charge-sheeted mainly under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. A bail application moved was rejected by the Magistrate. The rejection of the bail application by the Magistrate was mainly on the ground that the charge-sheet had already been filed and particularly in view of the decision in (Abdul Wahid v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1991 Mh.L.J. 1219. A revision had been filed on behalf of the accused before the learned Sessions Judge challenging the order of the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution granted bail by his order dated 24th October, 1994. On 4th November, 1994 the learned Sessions Judge has suo motu initiated and took up the matter and decided to cancel the order passed by him on 24th October, 1994. A show cause notice had been issued to that effect to the accused and that show cause notice culminated in the passing of an order dated 9th November 1994, which is impugned here. 3. The main ground shown by the learned Sessions Judge is that he has skipped the notice of the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in the decision of Abdul Wahid v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 Mh.L.J. 1219 while granting bail. He also stated that it was not mentioned whether it was a decision of a Single Judge or of a Division Bench. Therefore, the granting of bail by him on 24th October 1994 was rendered per incuriam, says the learned Sessions Judge. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has no power to suo motu review his own order or judgment. Only power vested in him by section 362 Criminal Procedure Code is to alter his judgment on a clerical mistake. The learned Counsel also brought to my notice a decision of the Supreme Court in (Mosst. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has no power to suo motu review his own order or judgment. Only power vested in him by section 362 Criminal Procedure Code is to alter his judgment on a clerical mistake. The learned Counsel also brought to my notice a decision of the Supreme Court in (Mosst. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee alias Smt. Chabbi Mukherjee and another)2, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1605 where it has been stated in paragraph 4 as follows :- "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 save as otherwise provided by the Code." The Supreme Court has also gone to the extent of saying that even the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot make such order unless it is absolutely necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers, however, are controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statute. The Supreme Court in the above decision observes thus :- "If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the Court cannot give a go by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction." 5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the taking into account the seriousness of the offence and that the learned Sessions Judge himself has expressed anxiety in having granted bail to the accused, who was charged for a heinous offence of section 302, Indian Penal Code, on merits of the case, whatever may be the illegality of the order passed by the Sessions Judge, the cancellation of bail granted to the accused was justified. However, the learned Public Prosecutor is not able to fortify his contention by citing any authority in this respect. In the light of the foregoing discussion I think that the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his power by cancelling the bail which was granted by him. However, the learned Public Prosecutor is not able to fortify his contention by citing any authority in this respect. In the light of the foregoing discussion I think that the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his power by cancelling the bail which was granted by him. Therefore, I am satisfied that the order under revision passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 9th November, 1994 should be set aside and the accused may be directed to be enlarged on bail on the same conditions mentioned in the order dated 24th October, 1994. 6. Before parting with his judgment I would like to make certain remarks about the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that he was under a mistaken impression relying on the decision of (K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala)3, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 2206, which was referred to in the decision of (C.P. Nangia v. Om Prakash Aggarwal)4, 1994 Cri.L.J. 2160, that the inherent power of the High Court conferred under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is available to the subordinate courts in the State also. I am at a loss to understand how he got this impression in reading the above decisions. It has come to my notice that he is in the habit of sending his judgments to the lower Magistrate Courts. If he has sent this judgment also then certainly it will lead to confusion among the Judicial Officers. I hope such a wrong impression of the Sessions Judge should be set at rest at least after this judgment. 7. A copy of this judgment may be sent personally to the concerned Sessions Judge. Application allowed. -----