ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is facing the trial in C.C.No.2412 of 2012 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore had filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for production of the general diary of the respondent station for a period from 30.03.2007 to 08.11.2008. In view of the submission of the prosecution, that the general diary could not be produced since its preservation period is only for three years as per the Police Standing Order, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petitioner's application. Thereafter, when the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.2176 of 2014 for summoning the orders of the competent authority, who had ordered for the destruction of the records, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore had allowed the said application on 11.07.2014 and directed the prosecution to produce the records. While that being so, based on a letter dated 03.11.2014 submitted by the respondent police, wherein, it has been stated by the respondent police that the records pertaining to the competent authority who had passed the order for destruction of records and register were not traceable, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 18.08.2015 observing that the petitioner can cross examine the Investigating Officer at the time of his cross examination since the records were not traceable. Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate was not justified in reviewing or altering his earlier order. I find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 362 of Cr.P.C., specifically provides that when a final order has been passed, no Court can alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. In the present case, no petition has been filed by the prosecution seeking for alteration of the earlier order of the learned Magistrate on the ground of an arithmetic or clerical error. As a matter of fact, the earlier order of the learned Magistrate came to be altered based on the letter given by the respondent police. Even in the said letter, it was not the case of the respondent police that there was a clerical or arithmetical error in the earlier order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.07.2014. As a matter of fact, the earlier order of the learned Magistrate came to be altered based on the letter given by the respondent police. Even in the said letter, it was not the case of the respondent police that there was a clerical or arithmetical error in the earlier order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.07.2014. While that being so, the present impugned order dated 18.08.2015 of the learned Magistrate in accepting the prosecution letter and reviewing his earlier order and refusing to direct the respondent police to produce the record as per his earlier order is an abuse of the process of law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others reported in 2004 (7) SCC 338 on this proposition. The relevant portion among the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows: 15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provision of Sections 200 & 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking section 203of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code. 16. Therefore, in our opinion the observation of this Court in the case of Mathew (supra) that for recalling an order of issuance of process erroneously, no specific provision of law is required would run counter to the Scheme of the Code which has not provided for review and prohibits interference at inter-locutory stages. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this Court in Mathew's case (supra) that no specific provision is required for recalling an erroneous order, amounting to one without jurisdiction, does not lay down the correct law. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this Court in Mathew's case (supra) that no specific provision is required for recalling an erroneous order, amounting to one without jurisdiction, does not lay down the correct law. Thus, it is seen from the above observation that if at all the prosecution is aggrieved, the remedy available to them is by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and that the order of the learned Magistrate in altering its earlier order based on a letter by the police, is illegal. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 5. In fine, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the order in C.C.No.2412 of 2012 dated 18.08.2015 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore is set aside. In case, the prosecution is aggrieved by the original order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.2176 of 2014, it is open to them to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.