JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) dismissed the revision petition No. 147/92 (Hukam Chand & ors. Vs. State) for default of appearance and for non-prosecution. Thereafter it appears that an application was moved on behalf of the revision petitioner for restoring the revision. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh vide his order dated 8.12.92 allowed the application and restored the revision petition and recalled the order dated 22.4.92, whereby the revision petition was dismissed. 2. The question involved in this matter is as to whether a revision dismissed for the default and non-prosecution can be restored by the Additional District & Sessions Judge. In the case Subramania Kandar vs. Ramaswami Kandar,1949 Cr.L.J. 201 the Madras High Court has held that a revision petition dismissed for default of appearance can not be restored to file as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code analogous to Order 9 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code or its equivalent in Order 41 Rule 19 Civil Procedure Code. 3. In the case Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh, 1977 Cr.L.R. (S.C.)42 it has been laid down by the Apex Court that there is absolutely no power in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the subordinate court to review or recall an order passed by it. Unlike section 151 C.P.C the subordinate courts have no inherent power to review or recall an order passed by them. 4. Having regard to the above principal of law, it is evident that the revision petition once dismissed for default of appearance and for non-prosecution cannot be restored by the Additional District & Sessions Judge and as such the impugned order dated 8.12.92 cannot be sustained. 5. In the result the petition is allowed and the order dated 8.12.92 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******