Judgment : The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition came to be filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking clarification of the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2014, dated 24.04.2015. Hence the same is posted under the caption ‘for being mentioned’. The facts which lead to filing of the present petition are as under: By an order dated 24.04.2015, this Court, while disposing of Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2015 modified the order of confiscation from 16% to 8%. It was a case where the petitioners herein were owners of a wholesale kirana shop, which was being run in the name and style of M/s.S.S.Stores, Turakabadi Veedhi, Narsipatnam. When the authorities inspected the shop, they found certain variations in the ground stock with the entries made in the Register. Hence the entire stock was seized and proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act were initiated. After calling for an explanation and after conducting enquiry, the District Collector rejected the defence put forth by the petitioners and accordingly ordered confiscation to an extent of 33% of the seized stock. The said order was questioned by way of filing Crl.A.No.20 of 2014 before the Principal Sessions Court, Visakhapatnam. By its judgment dated 16.02.2015, the said appeal was allowed in part by reducing the extent of confiscation of stock from 33% to 16%. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2015. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court, reduced the confiscation from 16% to 8%. The reason for reducing the confiscation was that some of the stock namely rice, R.G.Dal, bengalgram dal, blackgram dal, blackgram dal (piece) was within permissible limits. Since there was variation insofar as other stocks are concerned, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no variation at all and that the confiscation itself is illegal was rejected. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the confiscation of seized stock was reduced from 16% to 8%. The said order was passed in the month of April, 2015. Thereafter, on 22.06.2015, the petitioners herein made a representation to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, requesting him to implement the order dated 24.04.2015. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the confiscation of seized stock was reduced from 16% to 8%. The said order was passed in the month of April, 2015. Thereafter, on 22.06.2015, the petitioners herein made a representation to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, requesting him to implement the order dated 24.04.2015. In the said representation, it was urged that confiscation was reduced from 16% to 8%, insofar as stock which are not within the permissible limits and not in respect of the entire stock seized. However, the District Collector by his order dated 21.06.2015, directed the petitioners herein to deposit an amount of Rs.94,834/- to the Government account, being the value of 8% of the confiscated stock. In view of the above order, the present application came to be filed seeking clarification of the order dated 24.04.2015, on the ground that the confiscation of the stock which was reduced from 16% to 8% relates to stock which is not within permissible limit and not with regard to the entire seized stock. The preliminary objection raised is with regard to the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking clarification of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that the present application is maintainable since the petitioners are seeking only clarification of the order and not review of the order. In support of his contention, he placed on record the following judgments: (1) Relying upon the judgment in Vijaya Sri Vs. State of A.P. and another [2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 622 (AP)], learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a difference between recall and review and as the present application is only to clarify the order, the same is permissible under law. The judgment referred to above relates to a case where the petitioner therein, who is A7 in Crime No.32 of 2004, filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings against her. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner therein, this Court dismissed the said petition on 21.06.2006 for non-prosecution. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 21.06.2006, since the order of dismissal came to be passed due to absence of the petitioner. This Hon’ble Court distinguished the word ‘review’ and ‘recall’ and by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., recalled the order. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 21.06.2006, since the order of dismissal came to be passed due to absence of the petitioner. This Hon’ble Court distinguished the word ‘review’ and ‘recall’ and by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., recalled the order. It may be useful to extract relevant portion of the said judgment, which is as under: “… 17. In the instant case, on the day when the criminal petition in question was called, even though it was specially listed under the caption ‘for stayed matters’, none represented the matter and as such this Court dismissed the criminal petition for non-prosecution. As already stated though the order impugned is a final order, it was passed for default of the petitioner. In fact, the learned counsel, who is appearing on behalf of the petition, has filed his sworn affidavits in support of the petitions stating the reasons for not attending the Court on the day when the order in question was passed. The sound judicial view would be that reasonable opportunity of being heard must be provided to each party. Further, right of hearing a case is very important and no party should be deprived of such liberty. In order to invoke the inherent powers of this Court there are three conditions prevalent under Section 482 of the Code. As per the third limb or condition of Section 482 of the Code i.e., to secure the ends of justice, this Court can exercise its inherent powers. Having regard to these circumstances and in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code, to recall the order dated 21.06.2006 passed in Crl.P.No.1808 of 2005, to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to advance his arguments on the main case.” The said judgment may not apply to the case on hand and it was a case where a petition for recall of the order came to be filed since the main application was ‘dismissed for default’ and no orders were passed on the merits of the case. (2) In Vishnu Agarwal Vs. (2) In Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [ (2011) 14 SCC 813 ], the Apex Court while dealing with a case wherein a criminal revision which was listed before the High Court on 02.09.2003 was dismissed due to non appearance on behalf of the revision petitioners, though there was representation on behalf of the respondent’s counsel. Immediately, thereafter an application was made for recall of the order dated 02.09.2003, alleging that the case was shown in the computer list and not in the main list of the High Court. Dealing with the said aspect and by relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [ (2001) 1 SCC 169 :2001 SCC (Crl.) 113 : AIR 2001 SC 43 ], the Apex Court held as under: “… 7. Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the respondent was an application for recall of the order dated 2-9-2003 and nor for review. In Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West Bengal [ (2009) 2 SCC 703 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 541: (2009) 1 SCC (Crl.) 851: (2009) 1 SCR 469], this Court made a distinction between recall and review which is as under: (SCC p.705, paras 6 – 7) “6. There is a distinction between… a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition the Court considers on merits where there is na error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. 7. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Excise Licensees’ Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh [ (2007) 11 SCC 374 ] canceling certain licences was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences.” Hence, we see no error in the impugned order passed by the High Court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. From the judgment referred to above, it is clear that there is a distinction between ‘review’ petition and ‘recall’ petition. In a review petition, the Court considers the case on merits, where there is error apparent on the face of the record. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. From the judgment referred to above, it is clear that there is a distinction between ‘review’ petition and ‘recall’ petition. In a review petition, the Court considers the case on merits, where there is error apparent on the face of the record. In case of recall petition, the Court does not go into the merits, it recalls the order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. But the case on hand is totally different. In the instant case, an opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the petitioners and also to the Public Prosecutor and after hearing both sides, an order came to be passed reducing the confiscation from 16% to 8%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present application seeking clarification of the order amounts to recall but the same virtually amounts to reviewing of the earlier order, which cannot be entertained in view of the bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another [2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 10 (AP)]. It was a case where this Court, by an order dated 07.10.2013, disposed of the Crl.P.No.11331 of 2013 directing the investigating authority to complete the investigation without arresting the accused and to file its final report before the concerned Court. Further this Court also directed the accused to cooperate with the investigating authority as and when required. Aggrieved by the said order, the defacto complainant filed the said Criminal Petition on the ground that the order came to be passed without issuing notice to him. It was argued that once an order is passed by the Court on merits, the said Court becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking recall of the order on merits. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra), the Court allowed the petition as no notice was served on the defacto complainant before disposing of the main Criminal Petition. From the above, it is clear that the judgment of this Court in Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu Vs. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra), the Court allowed the petition as no notice was served on the defacto complainant before disposing of the main Criminal Petition. From the above, it is clear that the judgment of this Court in Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another(supra) also is of no help to the petitioner, as the order in the said case came to be passed without notice being served on the informant and without hearing him. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Court in an un-reported judgment in Crl.R.C.M.P.(S.R).No.23476 of 2013 in Crl.R.C.No.1106 of 2013. It was a case where an application filed by the defacto complainant to recall the order of this Court on the ground that the orders were obtained by suppressing the facts, playing fraud and without according an opportunity to the defacto complainant. Referring to various authorities, this Court allowed the said application. The said judgment is also of no help to the petitioner, as the circumstances which lead to recall of the order fall within the parameters laid by the Apex Court in Vishnu Agarwal’s case (supra). Though there is bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. to review the orders passed, the Apex Court as well as this Court recalled the orders since the orders which were sought to be recalled, came to be passed either without giving notice to the party or without hearing the petitioner and also with a view to secure the ends of justice, as contemplated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As stated earlier, the issue involved in the present case is totally different. It is not a case where the impugned order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner. Interpreting the words used in the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon the Court stating that the reduction of confiscation from 16% to 8% relates only to the seized stock and not to the entire stock. It is not a case where the impugned order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner. Interpreting the words used in the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon the Court stating that the reduction of confiscation from 16% to 8% relates only to the seized stock and not to the entire stock. I am afraid the same cannot be accepted for the reason that it would amount to reviewing the entire judgment, giving a different result to the case which is a bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Crl.R.C.M.P.No.906 of 2015 in Crl.R.C.No.535 of 2015 is dismissed.