A court has no power to review a final order in view of the bar imposed under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated April 2, 1986 passed by the Second Special Judge, Calcutta by which the learned Special Judge set aside the previous order dated 29th November, 1985 stopping further investigation under section 167 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and discharging thereby the accused persons in G. R. Case No. 535 of 1985. Facts are briefly as follows : on March 2, 1985 the petitioner No. 1 had been arrested for having committed an offence punishable under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for alleged violation of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order 1977 and also the provisions of the West Bengal Imported Vegetable Oil (Prohibition of Unauthorised Sales) Order, 1984. On September 2, 1985 the Investigating Officer filed an application under Section 167 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for extending the time for investigation beyond the statutory period of six months from the date of the arrest of the petitioner. The learned Judge fixed November 29, 1985 for hearing of the said application.

( 2 ) XX XX XX XX XX

( 3 ) BY the order dated November 29, 1985, the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the Investigating Police Officer for extending the time to complete the investigation and dropped the case and discharged the accused petitioners from bail bonds. On December 10, 1985, K. Patra, Sub Inspector being the Investigating Officer filed an application for recalling the order dated November 29, 1985 discharging the petitioners from the said case and the learned Judge dismissed such application. On January 7, 1986 the State of West Bengal, through the Public Prosecutor filed an application before the learned Judge praying for recalling and setting aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Judge on November 29, 1985. The learned Judge by the April 2, 1986 order, set aside the earlier order discharging the accused and the Investigating Officer was permitted to investigate the case within a month. Being aggrieved the present revision has been filed.

( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. Roy learned Advocate for the petitioners that the learned Special Judge has no power to set aside his order dated 29th November, 1985 because the order which was passed was final order and if the State had any grievance against such order, the State could have preferred an application in revision in the appropriate court against such order but the Special Judge had no power to review his order and when by the order dated April 2, 1986 the order dated 29th November, 1985 was reviewed and/or set aside and the discharge order was vacated and the Investigating Officer was directed to complete investigation within a month the impugned order being illegal is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) I have perused the certified copy of the impugned order dated 24, (?) 1986 - I have also perused the decisions which were cited before the learned Special Judge. The decision reported in 1981 Cri LJ 296 : (AIR 1981 SC 736), Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal referred to by the learned Judge clearly indicates quite otherwise. In that decision, it was held that when the High Court directed the restoration of possession to the respondents, any subsequent order for clarification of that order by declaration that it was not binding on the applicant and did not affect his/her position cannot be passed under S. 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code because such an order for clarification of the earlier order does not come within the purview of the clerical or arithmetical error and such an order is clearly barred under S. 362 of the Code. Moreover, Mr. Roy, learned Advocate, has referred to two Supreme Court decisions namely, Bindheshari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432 and A. S. Gouraya v. S. N. Thakur, 1986 Cri LJ 1074 : (AIR 1986 SC 1440 ). In the decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 2432 it has been held that there is