ORDER : The petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.908 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate’s Court, Paravur, seeks to recall the order convicting him by this Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court convicted him. The petitioner challenged the conviction before the Sessions Court, Kollam, by filing Crl.A.No.350 of 2008. The Sessions Court acquitted the petitioner of the offence alleged. 2. The complainant challenged the acquittal in this revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. 3. This Court on 15.12.2009 admitted the Revision Petition. As per order dated 04.04.2024, this Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.7,00,000/-. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the order converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction exercising the power under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction and therefore, the order is a nullity. The learned counsel urged that as the order passed is without jurisdiction, and thus, a nullity, it can be recalled exercising the inherent powers of this Court. The learned counsel relied on State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others [ (2011) 14 SCC 770 ], New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Krishna Kumar Pandey [ (2021) 14 SCC 683 ], Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy [MANU/SC/0086/2022] Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [ (2002) 6 SCC 650 ] in support of his contention. 6. The challenge in this revision was against the finding of acquittal by the Sessions Court Kollam. This Court admitted the revision and proceeded to hear the parties exercising the jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C, 7. Section 401 Cr.P.C. reads thus:- “401. High Court's powers of revision.-(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.” 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 says that a High Court is not authorised to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In Joseph Stephen (Supra), following Bindeshwari Prasad Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the order of conviction by the High Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained and it is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the necessary conclusion is that the order dated 04.04.2024 converting the finding of acquittal passed against the petitioner into one of conviction is without jurisdiction and therefore, it is a nullity. 9. A question arises as to whether the rider contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. limits the power of the High Court to recall the impugned order. 10. Section 362 of Cr.P.C. 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.” 11. 10. Section 362 of Cr.P.C. 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.” 11. The bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. is subject to the saving clause to the effect that “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. 12. This Court is vested with the inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India which has been saved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to secure the ends of justice. In Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (Supra), the Supreme Court held that if a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it 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 Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, the Supreme Court held that the power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. 11. In Daxaben v. State of Gujarat [MANU/SC/0939/2022], the Supreme Court observed that the High Court has the inherent power to recall a judgment or order, which was without jurisdiction. This Court in Babu @ Achayan v. Thankachan and Another [ 2022(2) KLT 394 ] followed the principles declared by the Supreme Court in the above precedents. 12. In the present case, the High Court did not have the power to convert the finding of acquittal to one of conviction rendering the same a nullity. 13. Resultantly, the order dated 04.04.2024 stands recalled. The Crl.M.A. is allowed as above.