Order.: This petition is filed under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for reviewing the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 476 of 1964. This Court in Revision confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners for the offences of criminal trespass. Under section 369, Criminal Procedure Code, no criminal Court when it has signed the judgment shall alter or review the same expect to correct a clerical error. It is submitted that this section is not applicable to the High Court especially when it is disposing of appeals or Revisions. It has been repeatedly held by this Court from In re Arum Padayachi1that a criminal Court has no power to review its judgment when once it has been signed. The learned Counsel on the authority of the Full Bench decision in Saj Narain v. State2submitted that the High Court has power to review and recall or alter its earlier decision in a criminal Revision under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sankath Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3it was held that the appellate Court has no power to review or restore an appeal which has been disposed of. A Sessions Judge cannot set aside the first order passed in appeal dismissing the appeal when neither the appellants nor their Counsel appeared and cannot order rehearing of the appeal. Construing sections 369 and 424, Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court observed that the appellate Court could not pass an order of rehearing of the appeal in exercise of the inherent powers when section 369 read with section 424 of the Code specifically prohibit the altering or revising of its order by a Court. It was further observed that the inherent powers cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits the Court from doing. The learned Counsel submitted that this decision may not be applicable to the exercise of the powers of the High Court as a Court of revision under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, does not in any way enlarge the powers conferred under the Code especially when it is provided in the Code that no Court when it has signed the judgment, shall alter or review the same. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, does not in any way enlarge the powers conferred under the Code especially when it is provided in the Code that no Court when it has signed the judgment, shall alter or review the same. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed Naim4cited with approval the Privy Council decisions in Jairam Das v. Emperor5and Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed6and held that it is now well settled that the section confers no new powers on the High Court and that it merely safeguards all the existing inherent powers possessed by the Court necessary to secure the ends of justice. The same view is stated by the Supreme Court in Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar7. It is idle to contend that section 369, Criminal Procedure Code, in not applicable to criminal revisions for the Court exercising its powers of revision under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, exercises only some of the powers conferred on aCourt of Appeal. The powers of revision cannot be stated to be larger than that of a Court of Appeal. In a recent decision of this Court in Anthony Das v. State8Sadasivam, J., also took the view that the High Court has no inherent power to alter or review its own Judgment. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. This petition is dismissed. V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.