JUDGMENT (Prayer: Review Petition filed under Sections 401 r/w 482 of Cr.P.C., may be pleased to review the judgment and order dated 27.10.2022 in Crl.R.C.No.782 of 2017 passed by this Honourable Court and acquit the petitioner and pass such further order.) 1. This Review Petition is filed under Sections 401 r/w 482 of Cr.P.C., to review the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.782 of 2017, dated 27.10.2022. 2. The Registry has made a note and returned the petition stating that the petition is not maintainable in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. However, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has represented the paper with an endorsement stating that, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal Gupta -vs- D.H.Mehta reported in 1971 SCC Criminal 279, the petition to review is maintainable. Hence, having doubt over the said legal position, the Registry has placed the matter before this Court under the Caption “For Maintainability” 3. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, Mr.Sankarasubbu Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who appeared for the revision petitioner contended that, the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by this Court in the Crl.RC.No.782 of 2017 requires review, in view of the fact that the Court while passing the order has inadvertently considered that the confession statement of the 1st accused, which was rejected by the trial Court has not voluntary. Further, the confession statement of the co-accused could never be a foundation for proving the charges. Hence, it is just and necessary to review the order. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring paragraph No.14 of the order submitted that, this Court has taken into consideration the confession statements of the accused persons which has been rejected by the trial Court. 5. Further, in addition emphasised that, the goods exported under four disputed bills were not recovered by the Customs Department to prove that goods exported was not Leather goods but snake skin. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Titty Alias George Kurian -vs- The Deputy Range Forest Officer reported in 2021 (2) Crimes 28 (SC), submitted that the foundation of the prosecution case is prohibited goods were exported through misdeclaration when this is not proved, the order charge has to fail. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Titty Alias George Kurian -vs- The Deputy Range Forest Officer reported in 2021 (2) Crimes 28 (SC), submitted that the foundation of the prosecution case is prohibited goods were exported through misdeclaration when this is not proved, the order charge has to fail. The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal Gupta case cited supra referred by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is regarding provision explaining the expression “a person in-charge of, and was responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Company” in FERA Act 1972. 6. The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Titty @ George Kurian cited supra is in respect of a criminal complaint initiated under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, was quashed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the Forest Department has preferred an Appeal before the Hon''ble Apex Court. The Hon''ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal on 16.05.2018 has entertained the review petition and dismissed the appeal preferred by the State vide order dated 09.12.2020. In view of the judgment of the Apex Cour, the turtle which was seized by Rani Forest Flying Squared Range Staff under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1971, on 25.07.2016 was freed on 27.07.2016. The identification of the species to which turtle seized belongs to Indian Soft-Shelled Turtle (Lissemys Punctata Punctata) or Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys Punctata) was in doubt. Also, an query whether these two kinds of turtle belongs to different species or part of single species or a subspecies of the latter could not be decided since the turtle seized has already been freed and not available for analysis. In the said circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in exercise of its powers, had reviewed its earlier order and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Forest department, confirming the judgment of the High Court, which quashed the criminal prosecution. 7. Whereas, the case in hand is entirely different and this Court to his knowledge and ability had culled out the facts and tested it in the light of the power conferred under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C and found that, the conviction by the trial Court is not for exporting snake skin under the guise of leather goods, for the goods delivered to be seized and produced before the Court. The conviction is for forging the export bills and the petitioner as Manager and power of attorney holder along with the other accused Tr.Nandagopal had conspired to clandestinely exported snake skin to Singapore and for the said purpose, forged signature of the Customs Officials and same been proved through the opinion of hand writing expert and other officials of Customs Department who are supposed to handle the disputed export bills. 8. The petitioner herein, who seeks review of the order is the Manager of M/s.Cargo Wings Limited holding the power of attorney on behalf of the Company and the authorised signatory of the Company had floated a fictitious firm by name M/s.Ganesh Traders and arranged for this clandestine export and for the said purpose, the signature of the Customs Official has been forged. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of this Court, for his conspiracy to forge Customs document, his remedy lies elsewhere, but not in a review petition. He cannot re-canvass the merit of his revision petition under the guise of review petition, which is precisely for bidden under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. 9. The Registry has rightly rejected the petition as not maintainable. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the judgments relied by the petitioner counsel, this Court firmly hold that this is not the case for review and the judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the case in hand to exercise power of the review. It is reiterated at the cost of reputation that the review power in a criminal matter by the Apex Court does not emanates from the Code of Criminal Procedure but under the Indian Constitution. Such power is exclusively vested with the Hon''ble Supreme Court and not with the High Court. If for any reason, the High Court entertain the review petition exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it will be an abuse of Section 482 of Cr.P.C and also violation of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., injuring the purpose and reason for which Section 362 of Cr.P.C. stands. 10. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous SR.No.57487 of 2022 is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.