Chagla, C.J.

1. An application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., made by the petitioner came before Dixit and Shah JJ. and was rejected by them on 12-6-1950. This application is made by the petitioner for a review of that order. It is very fairly conceded by Mr. Sule that in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Emperor v. Malhari, 50 Bom. L. R. 188 : (A. I. R. (35) 1948 Bom, 826: 49 Cr. L. J. 460 F.B.), such a review application would not lie. A further application is made by the petitioner that although a review may not lie it is the right of the petitioner to make an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution to successive Judges of this Court, and in pursuance of that right he is entitled to be heard by Judges other than Judges who made the order.

2. A very able argument has been advanced before us by Mr. Sule which deserves very careful consideration at our hands. It is argued that although under Section 491 successive applications may not be permissible to a petitioner, Article 226 of the Constitution enhances the rights of the citizen and under that article he has the right in enforcement of his fundamental