N. K. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for recalling the judgment and order dated 25-4-2003 passed in criminal Revision No. 160 of 1999 Kirti Prakash and others v. State of U. P. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revision No. 160/1999 was listed for hearing on 25-4-2003. It was a revision against the order dated 9-6-1999 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1999 upholding the order of conviction and sentence under Section. 323/34 and 325/34 ipc. Both the Courts below had come to the conclusion that the accused persons are guilty under the aforesaid section. The revisionist did not appear to argue the revision. The revision was dismissed on merit after hearing the State Counsel. The present petition under Section 428 Cr. P. C. has been filed to recall the aforesaid order on the ground that the applicant had engaged Shri rajat. Krishna Advocate to argue the revision and Shri Rajat Krishna was on sanctioned leave since 2-1-2003 to 30-6-2003. The; fact is that in the cause list the name of two counsel namely Shri S. K. Mishra and shri Rajat Krishna were published as the counsel for the revisionist and Shri S. K. Mishra was not permitted to withdraw the authority on behalf of the applicants. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I find that the petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. is legally not maintainable. The learned counsel, for the applicants has relied on Full Bench decision of rajasthan High Court, in Habbu v. Slate of rajasthan, AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83, in which it has been held that the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be and should be exercised by the Court for recalling the judgment in a case in which the hearing is not given to the accused but in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Singh Man v. Har Bhajan Singh Bajwa, 2001 Criminal Law lj 128 : AIR 2001 SC 43 , the aforesaid decision of the Rajasthan High Conn is not a good law. It has been held by the Supreme court, that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizing the High. Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. It has been held by the Supreme court, that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizing the High. Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power can not be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482. 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. ( 4 ) FURTHER I find that the Supreme Court has taken the same view in earlier decisions in Sankata Singh v. State, AIR 1962 SC 1208 : 1962 (2) Cri LJ 288, Smt. Suraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, AIR 1981 SC 736 : 1981 Cri LJ 296 and Manohar Nathu Sao Samarth v. Marot Rao, AIR 1979 SC 1084 . In these cases, certain principles have been laid down, which can be summarized as follows:" 1. That the powers to deal with the case must flow from the statute. 2. That the powers given under S. 362 cr. P. C. (S. 369 Cr. P. C. 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 taking away the powers altering or reviewing the judgment or the final order and as such principle of functus officio has been accepted. 3. That the prohibition contained in S. 362 Cr. P. C. (S. 369 Cr. P. C. Old) is not only restricted to the trial Court: but also extends to appellate Court or the revisiorial Court. 4. That the inherent powers of the Court, cannot be invoked where there is an express prohibition and in other words S. 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked. " ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the instant Petition under Section 482 cr. P. C. for recall of the judgment and order dated 25-4-2003 passed in Criminal Revision No. 160 of 1999 is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .