B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE Applicant - Reserve Bank of india has filed this present Application and prayed in Para ; 12 (A) that the Order dated 20. 12. 2002 of this Court passed in Criminal misc. Application No. 8449 of 2002 to the extent that it directs the General co. Operative Bank to start paying amount to the depositors who have invested not more than Rs. 10,000/- at the first instance be withdrawn and cancelled. ( 2 ) THIS Application was sworn by Shri abamindra Udgata, General Manager, r. B. I. , U. B. D. , on 13. 1. 2003 and the Office of this Court raised the objections that the provisions of law under which this application is filed was not mentioned in it. Thereupon, the learned Advocate mr. Chhatrapati for the Applicant had written in his own hand writing under section 482 Cr. P. C. Not only that in Prayer clause : 12 (A) words "applicant be joined as party" were also written by the learned advocate in his own hand writing and at the end of the Application "no other application is filed by the applicant before any other Court of Law" were also subsequently written by the learned advocate in his own hand writing. ( 3 ) ONCE, the Application is sworn then without any order from the court no addition or correction can be made by any one, including the Advocate, without the order of the Court granting permission "leave to amend". Inspite of it learned advocate Mr. Chhatrapati, who is very senior Advocate of this Court has done it which is highly improper. It may also amount to contempt of the Court, but keeping in mind the Judgment of the honble Supreme Court to maintain cordial relations with the Bar no further action is taken in the matter. ( 4 ) UNDER the circumstances the application in its present form was required to be straightway dismissed because when this Application presented before this Court no such prayer was made by the applicant to implead or join itself as party respondent. Thus, there is no question of recalling the order passed by this Court on 28. 12. 2002 in Criminal miscellaneous Application No. 8449 of 2002. ( 5 ) I must state that this matter was placed before this Court for the first time on 31. 1. 2003 at 2. Thus, there is no question of recalling the order passed by this Court on 28. 12. 2002 in Criminal miscellaneous Application No. 8449 of 2002. ( 5 ) I must state that this matter was placed before this Court for the first time on 31. 1. 2003 at 2. 15 p. m. and the learned senior Advocate Shri S. B. Vakil, appearing for the applicant had addressed the Court for almost entire second sitting as well as entire first sitting on Saturday 1. 2. 2003. Today, the arguments were commenced at 2. 30 P. M. and concluded at 3. 30 p. m. ( 6 ) MR. VAKIL submitted that review in criminal matter is permissible. However, in the following Judgments the Honble supreme Court has clearly held that review in criminal matter is not permissible, they are - (i) AIR 1990 SC 1605 (ii) AIR 1994 SC 1544 (iii) 2001 (1) SCC 169 , and (iv) 2001 (4) SCC 752 however, Mr. Vakil submitted that all these Judgments are out-side the point as in none of these cases the Honble Supreme court had considered Article 215 of the constitution of India. He submitted that constitution is supreme and under Article 215 of the Constitution this Court being a court of record can always review its own order even in criminal matter. He also submitted that it is true that u/s. 362 cr. P. C. save as otherwise, Provided by the code of Criminal procedure or by any other-lay for the time being in forcer no court when it signs its Judgment or final order disposing of the case shall alter or review the same except to correct the clerical, or arithmetical error. However, he submitted that law does not include constitution and the powers vested in the constitution cannot be taken away by way of Parliamentary enactment. He submitted that Constitution is the supreme and under Article 215 of the Constitution, this court, being a Court of record, can always review its own order even in criminal matters. In support of his aforesaid submission mr. Vakil has placed reliance upon the following Judgments of the Honble supreme Court, which are as under (i) 1991 (4) SCC 406 (ii) 1995 (2) SCC 584 (iii) 1996 (6) SCC 510 (iv) 1998 (4) SCC 409 (v) 2000 (1) SCC 666 (vi) 2001 (7) SCC 549 ( 7 ) LASTLY, Mr. In support of his aforesaid submission mr. Vakil has placed reliance upon the following Judgments of the Honble supreme Court, which are as under (i) 1991 (4) SCC 406 (ii) 1995 (2) SCC 584 (iii) 1996 (6) SCC 510 (iv) 1998 (4) SCC 409 (v) 2000 (1) SCC 666 (vi) 2001 (7) SCC 549 ( 7 ) LASTLY, Mr. Vakil submitted that there can be procedural review or review on merits. In the instant case there was procedural error committed by this Court while issuing the direction, therefore, this court should recall its direction. In support of his submission Mr. Vakil has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Honble supreme Court reported in 1980 (Suppl) scc 420. In the alternative Mr. Vakil submitted that the direction issued by this Court cannot be said to be judgment or final order, therefore, even if review is not permissible u/s. 362 Cr. P. C. then also there is no bar to review or recalling the direction issued by this Court in criminal matter. In support of his submission Mr. Vakil has placed reliance upon the following Judgments of various High courts : (i) 51 BLR 518 = AIR 1950 BOM 10 (ii) AIR 1946 CAL. 60 (iii) AIR 1961 PATNA 397 (iv) 1989 Cr. LJ 2382 (Karnataka) (v) 1995 Cr. LJ 2319 (Kerala) (vi) 1983 Cr. LJ (NOC) 173 ( 8 ) IN the instant case the offences u/ss. 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I. P. Code and sections 16 and 24 of the Banking regulation Act, 1961, were registered against accused Shri Hasmukhbhai kastoorchand Shah, Chairman of the general Co. Operative Bank and others for defrauding the bank in crores of rupees. On their arrest they approached the then learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 9, Ahmedabad, who granted Regular bail on certain conditions to the accused. The same was challenged before this Court by the General Co. Operative Banks depositors, Account holders and shareholders Association by way of different applications. The said order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was stayed by this Court while admitting their criminal Miscellaneous Applications and the accused were ordered to be arrested, pending final disposal of the applications. The said order was challenged by the accused before the Honble Supreme Court. However Honble Supreme Court has not interfered with the interim order passed by this Court. The said order was challenged by the accused before the Honble Supreme Court. However Honble Supreme Court has not interfered with the interim order passed by this Court. Thereafter, they were arrested and then appeared before this Court through their learned Counsel Shri thakkar, who made a statement before the court that his client is ready and willing to deposit the total amount of rs. 15,25,00,000/- as per the time bound programme and, therefore, Shri Prajapati for the Association said that he had no objection for releasing the accused on bail and accordingly they were enlarged on bail on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly the accused were making payment and so far they have deposited in all Rs. 4,75,00,000/ -. Common order was passed on 20. 12. 2002 by this Court in criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 8449 of 2002 wherein the direction was issued by this Court to the General co. Operative Bank to pay to the depositors who invested not more than Rs. 10,000/- at the first instance. Aggrieved by this direction the applicant - Reserve Bank of india has filed this Application and prayed that the said order dated 20. 12. 2002 be recalled. ( 9 ) IN my considered opinion when there are as many as four direct judgments of the Honble Apex Court taking the view that no review is permissible under the Criminal Procedure code then I am bound by those Judgments of the Apex Court reported in (i) AIR 1994 (SC) 1544 , (11) 2001 (1) SCC 169 , and (iii) 2001 (4) SCC 752 and, therefore, it is not possible for me to hold that the aforesaid judgments of the Honble Supreme Court are besides the point, on the ground that the Honble Supreme Court in none of the aforesaid Judgments has considered article 215 of the Constitution as submitted by Shri Vakil. ( 10 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of RAJPUT TEJSINH pratap SINGH v/s. THE STATE OF gujarat, reported in 10 GLR 106 has clearly held that the powers under the constitution cannot be used in interfering with the finality of the order of the High court. ( 10 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of RAJPUT TEJSINH pratap SINGH v/s. THE STATE OF gujarat, reported in 10 GLR 106 has clearly held that the powers under the constitution cannot be used in interfering with the finality of the order of the High court. ( 11 ) THE Judgments of the Honble supreme Court reported in (a) 1991 (4) scc 406 , (b) 1995 (2) SCC 584 (c) 1996 (6) scc 510 and (d) 1998 (4) SCC 401 are on the point that the Court can certainly review its order under Article 215 of the constitution will have no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, I have refrained myself in dealing with the same in detail. ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, various Judgments of the other High Courts, viz. (a) 51 BLR 518 = AIR 1950 BOM. 10, (b) AIR 1946 CAL. 60, (c) AIR 1961 PATNA 397, (d) 1989 Cr- lj 2382 (Karnataka High Court, (e) 1995 cr. LJ 2319 (Kerala High Court) and (f) 1983 Cr. LJ (NOC) 173 cited by Mr. Vakil will have also no application on the facts of this case because they were either dealing with the case where the Appeals were dismissed for default or discharging the accused. In the instant case this Court had issued the direction, keeping in mind the interest of public at large, which is in the nature of final relief at the interim stage. It may be made clear that if the applicant - Association had not approached this Court and the Bail of the accused was not initially cancelled then perhaps they would not have even deposited rs. 4-75 Crores. When this Court was fully convinced that the poor depositors should at least get some thing and if keeping in mind the interest of public at large if such directions were issued then in absence of any provision under the Criminal Procedure code there is no question of recalling such direction. 4-75 Crores. When this Court was fully convinced that the poor depositors should at least get some thing and if keeping in mind the interest of public at large if such directions were issued then in absence of any provision under the Criminal Procedure code there is no question of recalling such direction. ( 13 ) I may also state that whenever there is misappropriation of public fund running into crores of rupees neither the cooperative Banks nor the Reserve Bank are taking any immediate effective steps to recover the amount from the defaulters and when the Court issues such directions to the accused to deposit the amount in instalment and to the cooperative Bank to pay to the poor depositors then the Reserve bank is coming forward before this Court by way of such type of Application praying that the direction issued by this Court be recalled which is most unfortunate. ( 14 ) BEFORE parting, I must state that criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 2003 filed by the Employees of the Bank for impleading them as party respondents and to review the order was dismissed by this Court only on 31. 1. 2003 by the following order that no review is permissible in Criminal matters and it was held as under order"learned Counsel Shri Yagnik for the applicant union frankly stated at the Bar that the applicant-Union with regard to the grant of bail or breach of conditions of the bail order has no say in the matter. In that view of the mattert in absence of any provisions under the Criminal Procedure code for being impleaded as party- respondent in the main matterr this application is required to be rejected and it is rejected. "in view of the above discussion this application fail and is hereby summarily dismissed. .