Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. In the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad, has prayed for re-calling the order dated 22.3.1995 passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R) and to allow the petitioner to be added as opposite party No. 2 in the said case and after hearing the matter afresh a necessary order may be passed in accordance with law. 2. The relevant facts concerning this petition may briefly, be stated as here under; The Inspector, R.P.F., Dhanbad, had filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, on 2.10.1991 under Sections 3/4 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act against the opposite party No. 1 alleging, inter alia, that in a raid conducted on 2.9.1991 in the Rolling Mill of opposite party No. 1 various railway properties were recovered which were seized by the R.P.F. staff and seizure list was prepared. On the basis of the materials in the complaint filed by the Inspector of R.P.F., the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, vide his order dated 29.10.1991 took cognizance under Section 3/4 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act against the opposite party No. 1, against which the opposite party No. 1 filed Cr. Misc. No. 364 of 1993 (R), in which the State of Bihar was made opposite party. The said Cri. Miscellaneous case was decided by a Bench of this Court presided over by Hon ble Mr. Justice Surinder Sarup vide order dated 22.3.1995. His Lordship quashed the order dated 29.10.1991 passed by the Railway Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby he took cognizance in the case. 3. Being aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the order dated 22.3.1995 passed by this Court, the instant application has been filed for re-calling the order mainlv on the grounds that opposite party No. 1 had obtained the order by suppressing material facts without making the Complainant/Railway Protection Force a party in Cr. Misc. No. 365 of 1993 (R) and in the absence of complainant/ RPF the opposite party No. 1 obtained the order, virtually, in ex-parte manner, although, State of Bihar was made a party but the complainant/RPF was a necessary party in the case and without making him a party in the case the opposite party No. 1 obtained the order. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that in a case of Section 3/4 R.P. (U.P.) Act, which is lodged by a personnel of RPF the opposite party should have made RPF or the complainant a party in the case and the State of Bihar, though, made a party in the case, had no concern with a case instituted under Section 3/4 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and, therefore, the State of Bihar was not in a position to defend the case. As such, it was submitted that by not adding the complainant or RPF or the Union of India as a party in the Cr. Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R) the opposite party No. 1 obtained an order in the absence of necessary party. The opposite party obtained an order without giving proper opportunity to the real party who is concerned with the case and there is no bar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to re-call the order passed in the aforesaid circumstances after adding the complainant/RPF/Union of India as a party in the case and hearing a matter afresh the necessary orders can be passed in accordance with law. In support of his contention Mr. Bhowmik has relied upon a decision in the case of Deepak Thanwardas Balwani V/s. State of Maharashtra and another, 1985 Cr LJ 23, wherein it was held that; in its inherent powers as provided in S. 482, the High Court can review or revise its judgment if such a judgment is pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party who is entitled to a hearing and that party is not at fault. For the mistake of the Court, a party cannot suffer". In the said decision his Lordship had discussed the case of State of Orissa V/s. Ram Chander Agarwala, AIR 1979 SC 87 and by discussing the ratio of that decision, it was held that "when the High Court disposes of a matter without hearing a party who is entitled to a hearing it can be said that the High Court acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in such a case the High Court can review its earlier order in its inherent powers provided under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Mr. Bhowmik then relied on the full Bench decision in the case of Habu V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83, in which various decisions of the Supreme Court have been followed and discussed and it was held that the power of re-call is different than the power of altering or reviewing the judgment, and powers under Section 482, can be and should be exercised bv the High Court for re-calling the judgment in case the hearing is not given to the accused and the case falls within one of the three conditions laid down under Section 482, Cr PC. It was also observed in the same decision that in all civilized and democratic societies right of hearing has been considered to be one of the most fundamental of the fundamental rights flowing from principles of natural justice and principles enshrined in well known maxim "audi alteram partem". After discussing various decisions of Supreme Court their Lordships summarised the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as hereunder : 1. That the powers to deal with the case must flow from the statute. 2. That the powers given under Section 362, Cr PC (Section 369, Cr PC old) given to the Court for reviewing or altering is limited only for correcting an arithmetical or clerical error and specifically prohibits Courts from touching the judgment by raking away the power altering or reviewing the judgment or the final order and as such principal of functus officio has been accepted. 3. That the prohibition contained in Section 362, Cr PC (Section 369, Cr PC Old) is not only restricted to the trial Court but also extends to appellate Court or the revisional Court. 4. That the inherent powers of the Courts cannot be invoked where there is an express prohibition and in other words Section 482, Cr PC cannot be invoked. The analogical deduction arrived at from another set of cases were also enumerated by their Lordships, which are as follows : (i) Right of the accused to be heard is his valuable right which cannot be taken away by any provision of law. (ii) If the accused has not been given an opportunity of being heard or is not provided with the counsel when not duly represented it will be violative of principles of natural justice as well as Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) If the accused has not been given an opportunity of being heard or is not provided with the counsel when not duly represented it will be violative of principles of natural justice as well as Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. (iii) That to provide defence counsel in case the accused is not in a position to engage is fundamental duty of the State and has throughout been recognized and now incorporated in Section 304, Cr PC and in Art. 39 of the Constitution. (iv) That bar of review or alter is different than the power of re-call. (v) That inherent powers given under Section 482, Cr PC (Section 561 -A Cr PC Old) are wide enough to cover any type of cases if three conditions mentioned therein so warranted, namely: (a) for the purpose of giving effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (b) for the purposes of preventing the abuse of the process of any Court; and (c) for securing the ends of justice (vi) The principle of audi alteram partem shall be violated if right of hearing is taken away. (vii) That when the judgment is recalled it is a complete obliteration/abrogation of the earlier judgment and the Appeal of the Revision, as the case may be, has tc be heard and decided afresh. (viii) That a Court subordinate tc High Court cannot exercise the inheren powers and the Code restricts it to the High Court alone. (ix) That no fixed parameters can be fixed and hard and fast rule also cannot be laid down and Court in appropriate case where it is specified that one of the three conditions of Section 482, Cr PC are at tracted should interfere. Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to a case Bhagwant Singh V/s. Commissioner of Police and another, AIR 1985 SC 1285 , wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under : "What we intend to emphasize is that right of hearing is very important right of which no litigant should be deprived". Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to a case Bhagwant Singh V/s. Commissioner of Police and another, AIR 1985 SC 1285 , wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under : "What we intend to emphasize is that right of hearing is very important right of which no litigant should be deprived". That was also the case where the Magistrate dropped the proceeding against some of the accused on receipt of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving notice to the informant and providing opportunity to him/her at the time of the consideration of the report, where the Hon ble Supreme Court held as referred to above. 5. ****** 6. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions reported in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83 and in AIR 1985 SC 1285 (supra), in which several decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court have been referred to and discussed, Mr. Bhowmik vehemently argued before me that in the instant case, since in Cr. Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R) the petitioner was a necessary party and has not been made a party deliberately by the opposite party No.1 in order to obtain an ex-parte order the principles laid down in the above referred decisions are fully applicable in the present case because the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing, which was violative of principle of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that although, there is a prohibition under Section 362, Cr PC regarding reviewing or altering the judgment/order passed by a Court, the present case is not hit by the provisions of Section 362, Cr PC and in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in view of the laws laid down by the Supreme Court and the full Bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court and the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as referred to above, this Court has ample powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to re-call the order dated 22.3.1995 passed in Cri. Misc. No.365 of 1993(R) to secure the ends of justice. 7. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 relied upon a decision in the case of Most. Misc. No.365 of 1993(R) to secure the ends of justice. 7. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 relied upon a decision in the case of Most. Simrujgua V/s. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee alias Smt. Chabbi Mukherjee and another, AIR 1990 SC 1605 and it was submitted that this Court has got no power to review or alter the judgment or the order passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R). In the said decision the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that : "The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review under Section 362, Cr PC and the inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code." On the said principle the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. 8 I must say that in the said decision the case was entirely different and it was not the case before the Supreme Court that the petitioner had intentionally not made the complainant a party in the case and thereby the valuable right of hearing was denied to the complainant and the principle of natural justice had been violated. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding established principle of law as held by the Supreme Court in various decisions that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code and the law is clear that the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that on the ground of the other provisions of the Code and the Court is not empowered to review its earlier decision in the purported exercise of its inherent powers, but, here in this case, the matter is entirely different, inasmuch, as it is the admitted position that the complainant, who was Inspector of RPF was not made a party in Cr. Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R) and the said case was decided without hearing him. It is well established principle of law that right of hearing is a very important right of which no litigant should be deprived of and the inherent powers of the Court are comprehensive enough to advance the cause of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. 9. It is well established principle of law that right of hearing is a very important right of which no litigant should be deprived of and the inherent powers of the Court are comprehensive enough to advance the cause of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. 9. In the instant case, since admitted position is that the petitioner had not been given a right of hearing, I have no doubt to say that the petitioner was deprived of his fundamental right of hearing in violation of the principle of nature justice and order dated 22.3.1995 was passed in his absence. I, therefore, fully rely upon the full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83 and I am of the view that the order dated 22.3.1995 passed in Cr Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R) is fit to be recalled in the facts and circumstances stated above. 10. In the result, therefore, the order dated 22.3.1995 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 365 of 1993(R) is re-called. Let the petitioner be added as opposite party No. 2 in the case and after giving proper opportunity of hearing, the matter may be heard afresh and necessary orders may be passed in accordance with law. This application is, accordingly, allowed.