JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This revision has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.1988 passed by Sessions Judge, Allahabad, whereby he has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 22.8.1988 passed by the Court below and remanded the matter to the lower Court with certain directions. 2. Brief facts are that on 18.11.1987, the final report was received. The Court ordered the final report be registered and to summon the complainant fixing 17.12.1987. On 17.12.1987, an order was passed that inspite of notice, none is present to oppose the final report. After perusal of the final report accepted the final report. But again on 24.12.1987, the order sheets started and none was present, ultimately on 22.8.1988, an order was passed that none was present to press the objection. The final report has already been accepted by the predecessor, hence, objection be rejected and file be consigned. Later on again the case was taken up on 22.11.1988 and on 3.12.1988. Meanwhile against order dated 22.8.1988, the revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 470 of 1988 was preferred. The revisional Court allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 22.8.1988 and remanded back the matter to the Court concerned with the direction to hear the objection on the final report and thereafter decide the matter acceptance of the final report. 3. Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. 5. Perusal of the order sheets show that on 17.12.1987, an order was passed that since inspite of notice none was present to oppose the final report, hence the final report be accepted. 6. Section 362 Cr.P.C. reads as follows : “362. Court not to alter judgment.—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.” 7. Once the lower Court had accepted the final report on 17.12.1987, there were no occasion for the trial Court to pass any other order. 8. The revisional Court has set aside the order dated 22.8.1988, whereas the initial order dated 17.12.1987 accepting the final report is on record and has become final. 9. Once the lower Court had accepted the final report on 17.12.1987, there were no occasion for the trial Court to pass any other order. 8. The revisional Court has set aside the order dated 22.8.1988, whereas the initial order dated 17.12.1987 accepting the final report is on record and has become final. 9. It is settled law that when the Court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case it shall not be altered or reviewed the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. “A clerical or arithmetical error” is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the Court. It represents that which the Court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on arguments or disputation. An arithmetical error is mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing. 10. The prohibition in Section 362 against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment is subject to what is “otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.” These words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. 11. The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail. 12. Thus, learned revisional Court erred in setting aside the order dated 22.8.1988 due to which the revision is likely to be allowed. 13. Accordingly the revision is allowed. 14. The order dated 22.10.1988 passed in criminal revision No. 470 of 1988 is hereby set aside. —————