After an interval of so many years of disposal of Cr.WJC No.37/2012 vide order dated 19.07.2012 for which no appeal was preferred, instant petition has been filed to review the order dated 19.07.2012 on the plea that the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Mosmat Swaran v. State of Bihar as reported in 2012(2) PLJR 229 has not been considered which is also based upon 2012 (2) SCC 108 (Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) & Anr. V. Sri Sitaram Rice Mill) which also happens to be sheet-anchor of the order impugned.

2. At the time of hearing on the point of admission when a query was made with regard to maintainability of the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the power so invoked by this Court while disposing of the Cr.W.J.C. was under article 226 of the Constitution and so, be categorized under different nomenclature is not going to cloud the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution and that being so, review is permissible in terms of Section 114 as well as Order XLVII of the CPC, though not specifically embedded under constitution itself. Accordingly, instant review petition is permissible. To substantiate the same, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon AIR 1963 SC 1909 (Shivdeo Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.), AIR 1988 SC 1351 (Collector of Customs, Bombay, Appellant v. Bhor Industries Ltd., Respondent.).

3. The Court has to function as per assigned roaster entrusted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, having primacy over the same. Nomenclature of the petition is accordingly identified as well as categorized. So far Patna High Court is concerned, the writ petition is bifurcated in two parts, CWJC as well as CrWJC in terms categorization under Patna High Court Rules, Chapter XXI-C(3) which speaks as follows :-

“Application under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be registered as Civil Jurisdiction Cases (CWJC) or Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case (CrWJC) as the case may be.”

4. Whenever prayer is influenced with the fragrance of criminal cause, then the matter has to be seen in exercise of power having entrusted in terms thereof. Criminal court has no power to recall its own order as per Section 362 Cr.P.C. Irrespective of hierarchy of the Courts.

5. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors etc with Sumedh Singh Saini v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors as reported in AIR 2012 SC 364, it has been held as under :-

26. There is no power of review with the Criminal Court after judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment. (See: Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 43; and Chhanni v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 3051).

Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. (See: Moti Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1544; Hari Singh Mann (supra); and State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, AIR 2001 SC 2145).

27. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without