JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By the present application, the applicant, seeks to review the order dated 16th December, 2000 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000 by this Court and to restore the said writ petition for hearing the matter on merits. 3. As regards the maintainability of the application in the manner in which it has been filed, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Krishna Narain Lal and another v. State of Bihar and another)1, reported in 1999(9) S.C.C. 247 it is submitted that the bar under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not affect in the case in hand as the order dated 16-12-2000 is not a judgment within the meaning of the said expression under section 362 of the Cri.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that, in view of the framing of the charge, there is no cause for the applicant to approach the Magistrate objecting to the charge already framed and in that regard reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 94 and (Nandkishor Rampal Lohiya and others v. State of Maharashtra)3, reported in 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)546. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others)4, reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 465 submitted that this Court is functus officio in connection with Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000, and therefore, this Court cannot entertain the application filed by the applicant. 4. The Apex Court in Krishna Narain Lal's case has observed that the High Court was not right in rejecting the application solely on the ground that earlier application was dismissed. In the said case the party had sought to challenge the First Information Report lodged against him by filing application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was dismissed for default of appearance. In the said case the party had sought to challenge the First Information Report lodged against him by filing application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was dismissed for default of appearance. The appellant, therefore, filed another application seeking the same relief but the same was dismissed on the ground that earlier application having been dismissed there was no scope for entertaining the second application. Apparently, the second application was not in the nature of review application but it was a fresh application under section 482 of the Cri.P.C. and in those circumstances of the case the Apex Court observed that the High Court was not right in rejecting the application solely on the ground that it was not maintainable, because the first application was dismissed. 5. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, 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. The Apex Court in Hari Singh Mann's case, while considering the scope of section 362 of the Cri.P.C., after considering its earlier decisions in (Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purushottam Mondkar)5, reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 376 as well as in the matter of (State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala)6, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 87 has held that section 362 of the Code mandates 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. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the final order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. 6. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the final order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. 6. Again, in (State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair)7, reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2145 the Apex Court has ruled that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the High Court to review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction. Therein, by the first order the High Court rejected the prayer of the party for quashing the criminal proceedings. The order having attained finality it was held that it was not permissible for the High Court to reverse the same and quash the criminal proceeding on the ground of want of proper sanction and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that such order only corrected any clerical or arithmetical error. 7. The decision of the Apex Court on the point of powers of the Court to interfere in its own order disposing of a case is crystal clear to the effect that pursuant to the disposal of the case, the Court becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain fresh prayer for the same relief, unless the former order is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by law. Applying the same law to the facts of the case, it is clear that by order dated 16th December, 2000 Criminal Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000 was finally disposed of by this Court. Being so, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere in the said order on any count and/or to entertain any application for the relief prayed for in Criminal Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000 unless the order dated 16th December, 2000 in the said writ petition is set aside or altered by the Apex Court. Considering the same, the learned Advocate for the respondent is justified in submitting that the application is liable to be rejected. 8. Considering the same, the learned Advocate for the respondent is justified in submitting that the application is liable to be rejected. 8. As regards the second contention, there is no doubt that the Apex Court has held in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani's case that once charge is framed, the Magistrate cannot cancel it or discharge the accused and thereafter the Magistrate can either acquit or convict the accused unless he decides to proceed under sections 349 and 562 of the Code of 1898. The learned Single Judge of this Court also in Nandkishor Rampal Lohiya's case (supra) held that once charge was framed in warrant case instituted either on complaint or police report, the Magistrate has no power to pass order of discharge. 9. Once it is held that this Court cannot entertain the application in question on account of bar provided under section 362 of the Cri.P.C. read with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hari Singh Mann's and M.M. Manikantan Nair cases, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the issues sought to be raised with regard to inability of the Magistrate to discharge the accused once the charge is framed unless the applicant is able to get the order dated 16th December, 2000 of this Court altered or set aside in appropriate proceedings before the Apex Court. 10. Besides, recalling the order passed on 16-12-2000 whereby the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings was rejected, re-hearing the matter on merits, cannot be said to be correcting any clerical or arithmetical error in the said order. In the absence of power to review the orders and the specific bar provided under section 362 of the Cri.P.C., the relief prayed for in this application cannot be granted. 11. In the circumstances, therefore, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Rule discharged. -----