( 1 ) HEARD Shri. Salkar, the learned counsel on behalf of the Applicant and shri. Pangam, the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THE applicant herein was accused in C. C. No. 207/n/96/f wherein he was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant having challenged the said conviction/ sentence before the Sessions Court, the learned addl. Sessions Judge by his Order dated 17-1-2003 upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, in that the learned Assistant Sessions judge directed the applicant/accused to undergo 10 days S. I. and pay compensation of rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo 10 days S. I.

( 3 ) THE applicant filed a revision application before this Court, being Revision application No. 8/03. As none appeared before this Court on behalf of the applicant on 20-2- 04, 12-04-04 and 20-4-04, this Court proceeded to dismiss the Revision Application for non-prosecution on 21-4-04.

( 4 ) THE applicant has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code, for short) and has prayed for restoration of his revision Application which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21-4-04. The applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay.

( 5 ) THE point which requires consideration is whether an application for restoration of dismissal of Criminal Revision application filed under S. 397 of the Code, is maintainable.

( 6 ) SHRI. Salkar, the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, has submitted that the order of dismissal of Criminal Revision application can be set aside invoking the powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Code and in support of the said submission, Shri. Salkar has placed reliance on page 562 of A. I. R. Manual and on a Division Bench Judgment of patna High Court in the case of Ramautar thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1957 Patna 33 ).

( 7 ) ON the other hand, Shri. Pangam, the learned counsel of the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the power of restoration or review is not available to this Court on account of the specific bar created by Section 362 of the Code.

( 8 ) SECTION 362 of the Code reads as follows :- "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. "

( 9 ) REFERRING to Section 482 of the code and to 1991 All Cri. C. 177 it is stated at page 562 (supra) that where the revision was dismissed in default at admission stage and the petitioner had no information of the transfer of the Revision to the Court of Special Judge, High court in such circumstances can invoke inherent power to restore a revision application. The aforesaid observations do not show whether the dismissal of the revision application was by the High Court itself.

( 10 ) IN the case of Ramautar Thakur and others (supra), the Division Bench rightly took note of the fact that there was no statutory provision for restoration of criminal revision application dismissed for default, but observed that the power to restore such a case could be referable to inherent power which is saved by the provisions of Section 561-A (now Section 482 of the Code ). The Division Bench further observed that Section 369 did not apply to an order passed by the High Court under Section 561-A to restore a criminal application in revision dismissed for default in appropriate cases, observing that an order of dismissal for default of a criminal revision application is not a judgment, but a mere order and therefore section 369 will not bar the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to pass an order of restoration.

( 11 ) WHAT has been stated by the gauhati High Court at page 562 (supra) or the division Bench of the Patna High Court does not seem to find favour with what the Hon'b