JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By medium of this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (for short the ‘Code’), the applicant/respondent has sought recalling of the order dated 20.8.2016, whereby the Cr.MMO No. 198 of 2016 came to be allowed in absence of the respondent. 2. It is averred that though the case was fixed on 11.8.2016 but on account of old age, the applicant/respondent forgot the date and could not therefore appear. It is only later in September that he realised that he had received summons from this Court and contacted his counsel at Shimla and immediately thereafter filed the instant application. The learned counsel for the applicant/respondent would contend that order passed by this Court has resulted in injustice to him as the sublime principle of natural justice viz. right to be heard has been violated and for that reason this Court may recall the order passed by it. 3. On the other hand, the non-applicant/petitioner has vehemently opposed this application and has raised objections regarding its maintainability on the ground that there is no power of review available with the criminal court after the judgment has been rendered and in support of his contention has relied upon the provisions of Section 362 of the Code. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 4. Section 362 of the Code reads thus:- “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.” 5. Section 362 is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by the Court, the said Court in absence of specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order or final disposal is set by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 and it is apt to reproduce the relevant observations, which reads thus:- “44. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 and it is apt to reproduce the relevant observations, which reads thus:- “44. There is no power of review with the criminal court after the judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 CrPC is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment. (See Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169 and Chhanni v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 396). 45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 CrPC is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same (See Moti Lal v. State of M.P. (2012) 11 SCC 427, Hari Singh Mann and State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair (2001) 4 SCC 752 )”. 6. A careful perusal of Section 362 of the Code would reveal that Court is not authorised to alter or review its judgment except for limited purpose of correcting some clerical or arithmetical error. However, there is a saving clause engrafted in the provision itself because Section 362 Cr.P.C. starts with the word “save as otherwise provided by this Code or any other law for the time being in force.” 7. In this background, the seminal question that arises for determining is whether the prohibition created by Section 362 Cr.P.C. will be violated in case the request made by the applicant/respondent is allowed under Section 482 of the Code. 8. In this background, the seminal question that arises for determining is whether the prohibition created by Section 362 Cr.P.C. will be violated in case the request made by the applicant/respondent is allowed under Section 482 of the Code. 8. The legal position stands clarified in Vishnu Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2011) 14 SCC 813 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “6. In our opinion, Section 362 cannot be considered in a rigid and overtechnical manner to defeat the ends of justice. As Brahaspati has observed:- “Kevalam shastram ashritya na kartavyo vinirnayah yuktiheeney vichare tu dharmahaani prajayate” Which means: “The court should not give its decision based only on the letter of the law. For if the decision is wholly unreasonable, injustice will follow.” 9. That apart, it would be noticed that the applicant/respondent is not at all seeking review of the order but is only seeking recalling of the order dated 20.8.2016 and, therefore, the further question that arises for consideration is whether the review petition or recall petition are same or are distinct. This question is also no longer res integra, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asit Kumar Kar v. State of W.B., (2009) 2 SCC 703 , where a fine distinction between review petition and recall petition was succinctly delineated in the following manner:- “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 an 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’ Assn. v. Raghabendra Singh (2007) 11 SCC 374 cancelling certain licences was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences.” 10. Similar reiteration of law is found in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Agarwal’s case (supra). 11. v. Raghabendra Singh (2007) 11 SCC 374 cancelling certain licences was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences.” 10. Similar reiteration of law is found in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Agarwal’s case (supra). 11. The legal position was thereafter reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 wherein it was held that if the judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where an order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 CrPC would not operate. In such an eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. Even otherwise, the power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault. (vide Chitawan vs. Mahboob Ilahi, 1970 Cri LJ 378 (All), Deepak Thanwardas Balwani v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri LJ 23 (Bom), Habu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj 83 , Swarth Mahto v. Dharmdeo Narain Singh, (1972) 2 SCC 273 , Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan, ( 1981 1 SCC 62 , Asit Kumar Kar v. State of W.B., (2009) 2 SCC 703 and Vishnu Agarwal vs. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 813 ). 12. It is not in dispute that the order in the instant case was passed behind the back of the respondent and the reason assigned by the applicant/respondent for his non appearance have not even been controverted by the non-applicant/petitioner by filing a counter affidavit. 13. In view of the settled legal position, I deem it proper to recall the order dated 20.8.2016. Ordered accordingly. List the main petition for arguments on 16.3.2017.