ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicants, who were, besides two others, petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 394 of 2004, which has been disposed of by this Court on 02-08-2012. Heard also Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. By the judgment and order, dated 02-08-2012, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 394 of 2004, while the conviction of the applicants-petitioners, under Sections 143, 342, 506 and 323, IPC, were not interfered with, their conviction under Section 270, IPC was set aside and all the revision petitioners were directed to surrender, forthwith, in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai, so as to serve out the sentence of imprisonment, which has been passed against them. 2. Instead of surrendering, as has been directed by the judgment and order, dated 02-08-2012, aforementioned, the present petitioners seek modification of the directions, contained in the judgment and order, dated 02-08-2012, by extending to the applicant the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offender Act, 1958. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor is correct that the modification, which the applicant has sought for, really calls for review of the directions given by this Court, which is impermissible in law inasmuch as this Court, with the judgment and order rendered on 02-08-2012, has become functus officio and cannot, thereafter, without any change in the circumstances, exercise its inherent power under Section 482, Cr PC, particularly, when Section 362, Cr PC expressly bars review or alteration of an order passed by a Court, while functioning under the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the judgment or final order has been signed except for the purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance, with regard to the above, the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. Etc., reported in 2012 Cri LJ 1001. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance, with regard to the above, the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. Etc., reported in 2012 Cri LJ 1001. 5. There is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor inasmuch as the decision, in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra), makes it clear that there is no power of review with the criminal Court after judgment has been rendered and even High Court cannot alter or review its judgments after the judgment has been signed except for correction of clerical or arithmetical error inasmuch as the Court, on passing of the judgment, becomes functus officio and is disempowered from entertaining fresh prayer for any relief nor is there any provision, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, for modification of the judgment. 6. Because of the fact that Section 362, Cr PC prohibits any correction other than clerical or arithmetical error, the High Court cannot take recourse to its inherent power under Section 482, Cr PC, when an express bar, in the form of Section 362, Cr PC, exists. 7. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court finds itself incapable, in law, in allowing the prayer for modification of directions, which this Court has given by the judgment and order, dated 02-08-2012, aforementioned. 8. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this application fails and the same shall stand dismissed. This miscellaneous case shall accordingly stand disposed of. Application dismissed