R. K. RASTOGI, J. This is an application for modification/recall of order dated 16. 11. 2007 passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. Application No. 2984 of 2005 under section 482 Cr. P. C. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the applicant had filed an application under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the charge sheet submitted against him in case crime No. 54-A of 2002 of police station Sujanganj district Jaunpur under section 15 (3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The allegation against the applicant was that though he did not possess any medical degree or licence to practise as a doctor, yet he was functioning as a doctor in violation of the above Act and so a case was registered against him on the report of Dr. R. C. Upadhyay as case crime No. 54-A. of 2002 and in that case police had submitted charge sheet against him. He challenged the charge sheet and alleged in the application under section 482 Cr. P. C, that his name was doctor, but he was not working as a medical practitioner and he was an agriculturist and has been wrongly charge sheeted. 3. The above allegation of the applicant was refuted by the State in the counter-affidavit in which it was alleged that the applicant had opened a clinic in the name of Doctor Dubey and he was found examining patients and administering medicines without any licence. The applicant had also filed a rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit. 4. After hearing both the parties I had rejected the above application under section 482 Cr. P. C. on the ground that the pleas taken by the applicant were factual which could be substantiated at the proper stage during trial of the case and there was no illegality in the order passed by the Court. Now the applicant has moved this application for modification/recall of the above order dated 16. 11. 2007. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. for the State. 6. The applicants learned Counsel referred to para 2 of the applicants affidavit dated 4. 4. 2005 filed in support of the application under section 482 Cr. P. C, which runs as under: " That the applicant is an agriculturist fully and exclusively dependent upon farming. " 7. 6. The applicants learned Counsel referred to para 2 of the applicants affidavit dated 4. 4. 2005 filed in support of the application under section 482 Cr. P. C, which runs as under: " That the applicant is an agriculturist fully and exclusively dependent upon farming. " 7. He submitted that para 4 of the counter affidavit of Jagdish Singh filed on behalf of the State in reply to para 2 of the applicants affidavit runs as under: " That the contents of para 2 of the affidavit are correct. The shop which was used for medical practice was on rent taken by the applicant for the aforesaid purpose. " 8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that this fact that the applicant is an agriculturist and that he is fully and exclusively dependent upon farming has been admitted in para 2 of the counter affidavit and so there was no question of his doing medical profession, and since this fact was admitted by the State opposite party, there was no question of dismissal of the application under section 482 Cr. P. C. and it should have been allowed. I do not find any force in this contention. The State has simply admitted that the applicant was an agriculturist but it has no where admitted the allegation of the applicant that he was not doing medical practice. On the other hand, it has been asserted in the aforesaid para that he had taken the shop on rent for medical practice. In para 5 of the counter affidavit the deponent has further asserted that: ". . . . . In reply it is submitted that the applicant is not qualified for the medical practice even then he was found to be giving medical treatment to the public in general without any degree and authority. " Similarly following assertions have been made in para 6 of the counter affidavit: " In fact the Medical Officer of P. H. C. Maharajganj, Jaunpur on the information of public visited Babuganj Bazar where he found that the applicant along with three others were doing the job of medical practice without any registration from the Indian Medical Association. " Similarly following assertions have been made in para 6 of the counter affidavit: " In fact the Medical Officer of P. H. C. Maharajganj, Jaunpur on the information of public visited Babuganj Bazar where he found that the applicant along with three others were doing the job of medical practice without any registration from the Indian Medical Association. The applicant was found to be known as Dubey in Babuganj Bazar, therefore, at the time of lodging F. I. R. his address and correct name could not be mentioned in the F. I. R. " 9. Jagdish Singh further asserted in paragraphs No. 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit that: " 7. . . . The statement of R. L. Srivastava, Amar Nath were recorded by the Investigating Officer who supported the prosecution story and during investigation the Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the place where the applicant was doing medical practice. " " 9. The applicant was playing with the life of innocent public by giving medical treatment without any valid reason and qualification or registration of any Medical Board and has committed the offence punishable under section 15 (3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. He is not entitled to get any relief as prayed and the same deserves to be rejected. " 10. It is quite clear from perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the counter affidavit that the State has no where accepted the contention of the applicant that he was not running medical profession and it was specifically stated in the counter affidavit that he was practising as a medical practitioner without any licence and qualification. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the applicant that taking into consideration the contents of paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit his application under section 482 Cr. P. C. should have been allowed. 11. there is also one more aspect of the case. There is no provision for review/recall of an order under the Criminal Procedure Code and its section 362 clearly bars any review or recall of earlier order passed on merits and permits correction of clerical mistake only. The order dated 16. 11. 2007 in Cri. Misc. 11. there is also one more aspect of the case. There is no provision for review/recall of an order under the Criminal Procedure Code and its section 362 clearly bars any review or recall of earlier order passed on merits and permits correction of clerical mistake only. The order dated 16. 11. 2007 in Cri. Misc. Application No. 2984 of 20,05 was passed after hearing the learned Counsel of both the parties on merits and now the present application for recall/modification or review of the above order is not maintainable. The same view has been expressed by the Honble Apex Court in moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1544 . and in Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar. (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 575. 12. The position in this way is that the application for modification/recall of the order dated 16. 11. 2007 passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. Application No. 2984 of 2005 is legally not maintainable and more over taking into consideration the facts of the case also the applicant has failed to make out any case for recall/modification/review of the above order passed on merits and the application is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 13. The learned Counsel for the applicant at the end submitted before me that the applicant is an old man and Courts at Jaunpur are at a distance from his house at Babu Ganj, so he may be permitted to appear through Counsel in the case. It is to be seen that the applicant has not put in appearance before the learned Magistrate so far. He should first personally appear before the Magistrate and apply for bail and after being released on bail he may move an application before the Magistrate for exemption from personal appearance mentioning the grounds for exemption and if such application is moved by the applicant after personally appearing before the Magistrate concerned, the Court may pass suitable orders on that application taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. The application for modification/recall is dismissed subject to above observations. Application Dismissed. .