JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks recalling of the order dated 03.04.2008 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1204/2007. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed by this Court on 03.04.2008 ignoring the provision of Section 195(l)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code" hereinafter). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, if any offence with regard to the documents in custody of the Court given in evidence is committed then the procedure of Section 340 of the Code has to be followed and only the Court is competent to file a complaint in which the forged document said to have been filed. It is also contended that the order dated 03.04.2008 has been passed without impleading the petitioner as a party in criminal case. 4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that the order has been passed by this Court on a criminal side. There is no provision for review or recalling the order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Section 362 of the Code provides that save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, 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. In the instant case, neither clerical nor arithmetical error has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order dated 03.04.2008. 5. In State rep. In the instant case, neither clerical nor arithmetical error has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order dated 03.04.2008. 5. In State rep. by D.S.P., S.B.C.l.D. Chennai v. K.V. Rajendran and Ors., 2008 AIR SCW 6911 , while considering the question whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Sec. 482 of the Code can modify its earlier judgment and order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 169 , Simrikha v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Anr., (1990) 2 SCC 437 and Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr., AIR 1981 SC 736 , held that in view of the express prohibition in the Code itself in the form of Section 362, exercise of power under Sec. 482 of the Code cannot be exercised to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits. 6. In the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code. 7. In Simrikha v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the inherent power under Sec. 482 is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something, which is expressly barred under the Code. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Code and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision. 8. Keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove, the order dated 03.04.2008 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1204/2007 cannot be recalled. The instant misc. petition for recalling the order dated 03.04.2008 is therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition allowed. *******