ORDER : N. Santosh Hegde, J. - Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The appellant herein was charged for offences punishable under Sections 394, 360, 302, 397 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5-10-1999, after perusing the preliminary chargesheet came to the conclusion there was not enough material to proceed against the appellant in the preliminary chargesheet hence discharged him without taking into consideration the supplementary chargesheet. The prosecution moved an application for recalling the order of discharge on the ground that the Additional Sessions Court has not taken notice of the supplementary chargesheet filed by the prosecution. Learned Additional Sessions Judge having noticed the error committed by him recalled the order on 8-10-1999. The said order proceeded to frame chargesheet against the appellant. The appellant challenged the said order before the High Court in revision petition and the High Court has affirmed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recalling the earlier order on the ground that the order dated 5-10-1999 was passed by inadvertence without noticing the supplementary chargesheet. 4. It is against the said order of the High Court as also the order of the learned Sessions Judge recalling the order of discharge the appellant is before us. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial court once having passed the order discharging the accused, it is not open to the same court to review the said order since the court did not have the power to review under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also contended that the High Court did not take into consideration this question of law and committed error in dismissing the revision petition holding that the order of discharge is not a final order. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We are of the opinion, that the High Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the order of discharge is not a final order and the same could be reviewed or corrected by subsequent order. The appellant is acquitted by virtue of order of discharge, therefore, the same could not have been recalled or modified on the basis of a subsequent application filed by the prosecution. Therefore, this appeal succeeds, hence allowed. The appellant is acquitted by virtue of order of discharge, therefore, the same could not have been recalled or modified on the basis of a subsequent application filed by the prosecution. Therefore, this appeal succeeds, hence allowed. However, we make it clear that it is open to the respondent State to take such steps as is permissible in law to question the order of discharge, if so advised. Appeal allowed.