1. The Provident Fund Inspector appointed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the complainant of the Criminal Case No. 97 (M) of 1977, in which the opposite parties were arrayed as accused has come to this Court in criminal revision for setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, dated 20-5-1978 by which recalling his previous order dated 12-1-1977 passed in that case taking cognizance against the opposite parties, he dismissed the complaint.

2. On 12-1-1977, the petitioner, as complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties, all connected with the Bihar State Electricity Board, for their prosecution under Sec.14 of the Act read with para 96 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) alleging infraction of the relevant provisions on 25-10-72, 25-11-72 and 25-12-72. In receipt of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance in the case on that date itself, namely, 12-1-1977, under Sec.14 of the Act and ordered for issue of processes against the opposite party. On 18-5-1977, the Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred this case for disposal before a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Some of the opposite parties appeared before the transferee court while others did not and steps were taken by the transferee court for issue of warrant against them. On 15-3-1978, the transferee court adjourned the case to 25-4-1978 for the presence of the accused On 25-4-1978, the Chief Judicial Magistrate as it appears, recalled this case to his file from the transferee court and ordered for its being put up on 5-5-1978 for hearing and subsequently he adjourned it to 20-5-1978 for hearing.

3. On 20-5-1978, a petition was filed on behalf of the opposite party raising the plea that cognizance having been taken beyond the period of limitation as provided in Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the order dated 12-1-1977 was illegal and bad in law. A prayer was, therefore, made to hear this petition on the point of limitation, dismiss the case and discharge the petitioner. Although a copy of this petition appears to have been served on the other side on 19-5-1978, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without hearing the petitioner the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order and holding therein that cognizance having been taken on 12-1-1977 after the period of limitation this order was void ab initio and shall be deemed to be non-existent, he recalled that order and dismissed the complaint and the petitioner has challenged this order in this criminal revision.

4. The sole contention raised by Shri Hari Kishore Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that there being no provision in the Code empowering the Chief Judicial Magistrate to recall the previous orders passed by him, the impugned order was bad in law and must be set aside by this Court, the contention of Shri Birendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party, being to the contrary.

5. The contention of Shri Hari Kishore Thakur is well founded and it must prevail. It is undisputed that the order dated 12-1-1977 was a judicial order though the learned counsel for the opposite party described it as illegal. Obviously this judicial order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the usual way that is generally followed after registering the complaint. It is further un-disputed that, by the impugned order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recalled the order dated 12-1-1977. There is no provision worth the name in the Code empowering a Magistrate to review or recall an order passed by him and Shri Sinha has failed to point out a single provision therein to this effect. The question of exercise of the inherent powers by the Magistrate under Sec. 482 of the Code obviously cannot arise as Sec. 482 of the Code empowers only the High Cou