JUDGMENT :– Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The applicant is seeking recall of the order passed by this Court on 12.12.2012 in Criminal Applications No.4127 of 2012 and 4128 of 2012. 3. The applications were filed for condonation of delay and leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal dated 15.2.2012, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner in S.T.C.No.26/2010 in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. In fact, the complaint was dismissed, as the complainant, i.e. the present applicant/appellant failed to take steps for service of summons on accused i.e. the present respondent. It is the case of the applicant that the order of the learned J.M.F.C. is against the record. 5. When the Criminal Applications No.4128 of 2012 and 4127 of 2012 came up before this Court for hearing, at that time the learned Counsel for the applicant himself made a submission that in view of amended provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., the appeal is required to be filed in the Sessions Court. It was further submitted that on wrong assumption, the application for condonation of delay and application for leave to file appeal were filed in this Court. Therefore, on this submission, the applications were disposed of with an observation that the Sessions Court would take into consideration that the applicant was bona fide prosecuting the applications in this Court. 6. By the present application, the applicant submits that the learned Counsel for the applicant made a wrong submission that the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., as amended, would apply. In fact, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. would be applicable. According to the said provision, if an acquittal is recorded in a complaint case, then the complainant is entitled to present appeal against such order to the High Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant relies on the judgments of this Court in Shantaram s/o Laxman Tande Vs. Dipak s/o Madhav Gaikwad, reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 and M/s Top Notch Infotronix (I) Pvt. Ltd., through one its duly authorized Officer Vs. M/s Infosoft Systems & Ors., reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2312. The learned Counsel for the applicant relies on the judgments of this Court in Shantaram s/o Laxman Tande Vs. Dipak s/o Madhav Gaikwad, reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 and M/s Top Notch Infotronix (I) Pvt. Ltd., through one its duly authorized Officer Vs. M/s Infosoft Systems & Ors., reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2312. He submits that only due to inadvertence, despite the clear pronouncement of law on this topic, the applicant's Counsel wrongly made the submission against the law. He, therefore, submits that the earlier order be recalled. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Shelke, however, vehemently submitted that the earlier order cannot be reviewed. To this, the learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the ratio in the case of Habu, Petitioner Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1987 RAJASTHAN 83 and submits that recalling of the order, in certain circumstances, is permitted. 8. Upon hearing both the sides in my view, the present application deserves to be allowed for the following reasons : REASONS 9. In the case of Shantaram s/o. Laxman Tande Vs. Dipak s/o Madhav Gaikwad and M/s Top Notch Infotronix (I) Pvt. Ltd., through one its duly authorized Officer Vs. M/s Infosoft Systems & Ors., cited supra, learned Single Judges of this Court have consistently held that in view of sub-section 4 of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., complainant is required to file appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal recorded in complaint case. It is further held that the amendment of 2008 to the provisions of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. has not altered the said position. Despite this pronouncement, the learned Counsel for the applicant earlier made a submission that the appeal is required to be filed in concerned Sessions Court. 10. If the order is allowed to remain, then the applicant/appellant would be remediless. In the case of Habu Vs. State of Rajasthan, cited supra, the Supreme Court has extensively dealt with the power of recall of the order by underlining that the power to recall is different than the power of altering or reviewing the judgment. 10. If the order is allowed to remain, then the applicant/appellant would be remediless. In the case of Habu Vs. State of Rajasthan, cited supra, the Supreme Court has extensively dealt with the power of recall of the order by underlining that the power to recall is different than the power of altering or reviewing the judgment. The whole of the authorities were taken into consideration and ultimately, vide paragraph 39 inter alia vide Clause (v), the following declarations were made : "(v) That inherent powers given under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S. 561-A Cr.P.C. Old) are wide enough to cover any type of cases if three conditions mentioned therein so warrant, namely– (a) for the purposes of giving effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure; (b) for the purposes of preventing the abuse of the process of any Court; and (c) for securing the ends of justice." 11. In the circumstances, if the present application is allowed, it would not be amounting to review of the earlier order, but recall of the same, as in absence of any such order, the present applicant would have no remedy to prefer any appeal in law. In the circumstances, the following order : ORDER (I) The application is allowed without any order as to costs. (II) The orders dated 12.12.2012 passed in Criminal Application Nos.4128 of 2012 and 4127 of 2012, are hereby recalled. Both the Criminal Applications be placed for hearing according to due procedure of law. Rule made absolute accordingly. Application allowed.