JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The moot questions of law that need determination in this case are: (I) Whether the High Court in the absence of the counsel for the accused-petitioner can dispose of a Criminal Revision filed u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code of Criminal Procedure') on merits; and (2) Whether an order passed on merits in a Criminal Revision can be subsequently reviewed/recalled or varied? 2. For appreciating the position of law, bereft of unnecessary details, the snort facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid questions are stated herein below: The Petitioner along with one Bijay Kumar Swain stood charged under Sections 363/367/392/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 18th June, 1988 at about 5.00 p.m. the aforesaid two accused persons by using threat and coercion at the point of knife directed Anjali Swain and Sumati Swain, daughters of one Ganapati Swain to accompany them (accused persons) to Chatrapur bus-stand with an intention to take them to Cuttack. The two girls were minors and were returning from their chilli field after the day's works. It is alleged that at the bus-stand the two girls cried and disclosed the fact to others and as it was evening time, they were taken to the house of one Bipra Padhi by the gentlement of the locality and were kept there till they were handed over to their parents next morning. 3. On the basis of a FIR in this regard, G.R. Case No. 347 of 1988 was registered on the file of the S.D.J.M., Chatrapur which 11/91 & 28/91 was subsequently converted as Sessions Case Nos. 40/91 & 84/91 - GDC and tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatrapur. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses and exhibited five documents. The plea of the accused was complete denial. They neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 19th August, 1991 convicted both the accused persons under Sections 363/34 Indian Penal Code while finding them not guilty under Sections 367/392/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, subject to set off u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure 4. Both -the accused persons filed criminal Appeal No. 114/91 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Berhampur which was 41/92 subsequently renumbered as Criminal Appeal No Tl4/91-GDC and was heard by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, the appellate Court, after elaborate discussion of the evidence and other materials, was convinced that the trial Court had not committed any error of facts and law in holding the Appellants guilty under Sections 363/34 Indian Penal Code and by his judgment dated 16th February, 1993 confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the criminal Appeal. 5. One of the accused, i.e. Bansi Acharya, preferred Criminal Revision No. 259 of 1993 before this Court inter alia challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court which were confirmed by the appellate court. The said Criminal Revision was admitted by this Court on 8th June, 1993 and the Petitioner was permitted to be released on bail. Thereafter, the case was listed for hearing on 6th June, 1994 and on the basis of a prayer made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the same was adjourned to 9th May, 1994. On 9th May, 1994 again on the prayer of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the matter was directed to be listed after the summer holidays of 1994 it was thereafter listed on 21 st November, 1994 and again on 15th December, 1994 but none appeared for the Petitioner on the said dates and the case was suo motu adjourned. The Criminal Revision was then listed on 16th December, 1994 and on the request of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the same was again adjourned to January, 1995. It was listed on 4th January, 1995, but once again adjourned on the request of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Finally, the case was listed on 24th January, 1995. The Criminal Revision was then listed on 16th December, 1994 and on the request of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the same was again adjourned to January, 1995. It was listed on 4th January, 1995, but once again adjourned on the request of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Finally, the case was listed on 24th January, 1995. On the said date also none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and this Court after going through the impugned judgment, the evidence on record and also the grounds taken in the revision petition, by a reasoned order held that there was no reason to differ from the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below and that the impugned judgments could not be said to be perverse and dismissed the Criminal Revision as there was no merit. 6. After lapse of two years, i.e. on 10th February, 1977, a petition was filed on behalf of the Petitioner praying inter alia to recall the order passed by this Court on 24th January, 1995 in the Criminal Revision mainly on the ground that the listing of the case in the cause list escaped the notice of the Learned Counsel and this Misc. Case has been registered. 7. On the aforesaid backdrop, it is now to be decided as to whether the High Court is empowered to dispose of a criminal case on merits if the Learned Counsel for the accused does not appear on the date the matter is listed. 8. Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the High Court's power on revision. The said Section specifically stipulates that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretions, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 3.89,390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307. Thus, the revisional power and the appellate power of the High Court are co-extensive. Thus, the revisional power and the appellate power of the High Court are co-extensive. Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the powers of the Appellate Court to deal with appeal and provides that "after perusing such record and hearing the Appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears" the Appellate Court "may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interference, dismiss the appeal." 9. It appears from the facts of the present case that the Criminal Revision was admitted and was thus accepted for hearing. Due notice was served on the State. When the case came up for hearing, on a number of dates neither the accused nor his counsel appeared in Court and the same was suo motu adjourned, thereby giving opportunities to the accused or his counsel to remain present and argue the matter. They, however, failed to avail such opportunities, and when the case was finally taken up for hearing on 24th January, 1995, none appeared on behalf of the accused and the Court after perusing the impugned judgment and other relevant records, taking note of the grounds on which the order was impugned and after due application of mind, disposed of the case on merits. 10. The authority of High Court in such eventuality came for consideration before the SC in Shyam Deo's case reported in AIR 1971 SC 1606 . In the said case, the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, finding the Appellant's pleader absent, perused the impugned judgment and finding no merit dismissed the appeal. The SC took the view that once the appeal was admitted, it was the duty of the Court to peruse the records and dispose of the appeal on merits, even if the Appellant or his counsel is absent. Since the High Court dismissed the case in limine without following the mandatory requirements, the order was set aside by the SC. 11. In the case of Ram Naresh Yadav, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1500 , the SC while facing a similar problem took the view that in criminal matters the convicts must be heard before the matters are decided on merits. 11. In the case of Ram Naresh Yadav, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1500 , the SC while facing a similar problem took the view that in criminal matters the convicts must be heard before the matters are decided on merits. It, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter for passing an appropriate order by the High Court in accordance with law after hearing the Appellants or their counsel, and on their failure to engage counsel, after hearing the counsel appointed by the Court to argue on their behalf. 12. In view of conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of the SC and in the case of Bani Singh and ohters Vs. State of U.P. it was observed that in Ram Naresh Yadav's case (supra), the Court did not analyse the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor did it notice the view taken in Shyam Deo's case (supra). After careful consideration of the view expressed in the aforesaid two decisions and after analyzing the law in question, the SC in Bani Singh's case (supra) clearly expressed that the law expects the Court to dispose of an appeal on merits, not merely perusing the reasonings of the trial Court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasonings with the evidence on record with a view to satisfy itself that the reasonings and findings recorded by the trial Court are consistent with the materials on record. The Apex Court held as follows: The law therefore does not envisage the dismissal of the appeal for default or non-prosecution, but only contemplates disposal on merit after perusal of records. Therefore, with respect, we find it difficult to agree with the suggestion in Ram Naresh Yadav's case that if the Appellant or his pleader is not present, the proper course would be to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 13. A similar question arose before the Hon'ble SC in the case of G. Raj Mallaiah and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. 13. A similar question arose before the Hon'ble SC in the case of G. Raj Mallaiah and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. The SC after taking note of the decision in Bani Singh's case (supra) reiterated in para-5 or the judgment that it is open to the Court to dispose of an appeal on merits, even in absence of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties when the case is set down for hearing and the advocate for the party concerned does not appear. 14. In the case of Alyana Dhartma Rao v. Smt. Alyana Lachamamma and another, (1998) OCR 550, our own High Court observed that once a criminal revision is admitted and the Petitioner does not participate in the hearing, the Court should peruse the record and dispose of the revision on merits, but once the revision is admitted, it should not be dismissed for default. 15. A perusal of Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure itself would reveal that the said Section requires an opportunity of hearing to be given to the Appellant or his lawyer if he is present. It is the duty of the Appellant or his lawyer to remain present on the appointed date, time and place while the case is posted for hearing. This is the requirement of the Code on a plaint reading of Section 386. Law does not enjoin that the Court shall adjourn the case if both the Appellant and his counsel are absent. If the Court does so, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, it is a different matter, but the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter. It can dispose of the case after perusing the records and the judgment of the Court below. of course, it is needless to say that if an accused is in jail and no counsel has been engaged for him, it would be paramout duty of the Court to engage a lawyer for the Appellant at the State's cost to argue the case on behalf of the Appellant. 16. In the case in hand, the accused has been released on bail, and added to that, has engaged a fairly senior counsel along with two other counsel. 16. In the case in hand, the accused has been released on bail, and added to that, has engaged a fairly senior counsel along with two other counsel. The order sheet would reveal either advertently or inadvertently they remained absent on most of the dates to which the case was posted, the Court, however, as a matter of prudence in order to afford opportunities to the accused or his counsel to argue the matter suo motu adjourned the case on more than one occasion. In spite of such opportunities being given, the same were not availed. 17. The Court, as has been provided u/s 386 Code of Criminal Procedure is under no obligation to adjourn a case to Anr. date as and when the accused or his counsel does not appear. Such a view can bring about a stalemate in dispensation of justice. The accused/appellant/Petitioner, as the case may be, and his lawyer can remain absent with impunity not once, but again and again, till the Court issues a warrant to secure the presence of the accused. If Anr. advocate is appointed at the State's cost, he too would need the presence of the accused for instructions and that would also place the Court in the same situation. Such a procedure would therefore prove cum her some and promote indiscipline. Even if a case is decided on merit in the absence of the Appellant, the higher court can remit the matter to the Court below if there appears to have been failure of justice. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the ratio of the decision of the SC in Bani Singh's case (supra), in my opinion the High Court had the authority if the counsel remained absent on the date of hearing to decide the Criminal Revision on merit after going through the judgment of the courts below and other relevant records and cross-checking the reasonings recorded in the judgments, and after being satisfied that the reasonings were consistent with the materials on record or that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or the judgment could not be said to be perverse, as has been rightly done by this Court on 24th January, 1995. 19. 19. So far as the question as to whether after passing a reasoned order on merit the High Court has the power to review /recall the same is concerned, it would be apt to say that the High Court has no inherent power to reopen a judgment in a case which has been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of law. Law is well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to review or recall its judgment passed in a criminal revision or appeal. 20. Dr. Tripathy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relied upon a decision of the SC in the case of Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another. But the said decision dealt with a civil appeal and not an appeal governed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. Similarly, the decision in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Janamohan Das and etc. etc. dealt with a writ application. Both these two decisions have no application to the present case. 22. At the other hand, Ms. Kasturi, Learned Counsel for the State, forcefully submitted that the revision having been disposed of on merit, the order cannot be reviewed or recalled or varied, and this petition should be dismissed in limine. 23. In the case of State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair,,. the SC has clearly held 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 or revisional or original jurisdiction. Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the Court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case from altering or revising the said judgment or order, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. This prohibition is absolute and no Criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. 24. Dr. Tripathy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, took me through the evidence and tried to convince me that the order of conviction was based on absolutely no material or materials not tenable in law. This prohibition is absolute and no Criminal Court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed. 24. Dr. Tripathy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, took me through the evidence and tried to convince me that the order of conviction was based on absolutely no material or materials not tenable in law. Butthen, in view of the fact that the Criminal Revision has been disposed of on merit as long back as in the year 1995, and in view of my earlier finding that the High Court has the power to dispose of a criminal appeal in absence of the counsel for the accused on merit after going through the relevant records and cross-checking the reasonings recorded by the Court below in the impugned judgment with the evidence on record and after being satisfied that there was neither any error apparent on the face of the record, nor the reasonings were perverse, I am not convinced with the arguments of Dr. Tripathy. I have thus no hesitation to reject the Miscellaneous Case filed two years after the disposal of the Criminal Revision. Even otherwise, as has been held earlier, this Court has no power to review its own order passed on merit. 25. The Miscellaneous Case accordingly fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed