( 1 ) THIS petition has been moved by B. K. Chakravarty. Air Customs Officer, seeking quashment of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated March 31, 1990, by which she had directed release of the respondent on bail on funnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 (five lakhs only) with two sureties in the like amount with the direction that one of the sureties would be local. and that the petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction of the court without permission and he shall surrender his passport, if not already done.

( 2 ) THE respondent had moved a petition under Section 482 read with Sections 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking modification of the said order granting bail playing that the bail amount as well as the number of sureties be reduced. Vide order dated May 22, 1990, this Court had passed he following order :

"keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of rupees one lakh with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned"

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent who is a foreign national should col have been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge as recovery of illicit gold of the value of Rs. 24,12,467/ had been effected in this case. He has pointed out that the delay in the trial is taking place due to somewhat unusual cross-examination being carried out by the defence counsel on various dates resulting that statement of even one witness has not been completed on various dates He has urged that there was no lapse on the part of the court or the prosecution for the delay occurring ia the trial He has referred to Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 746/89, Nalla Thamby Sritharan v. Uma Shankar decided o. n May 23,1989, by R. L Gupta, J. and Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 838/89,qamaruddin v. R. P. Sharma and Another, decided on September 25, 1989, by Santosh Duggal. J It has been held in the said cases that a criminal revision is maintainable tor seeking setting aside of the order of the lower court granting bail and it has been also held that where a foreigner is involved in a serous economic offence, normally he should not be granted bail as possibility of such a foreigner jumping the bail and leaving the country cannot be over looked and the trial court should try to complete the case against a foreigner at the earliest. He has, hence, urged that the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in granting bail to the respondent.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other band, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainabilily of the present petition. He has argued that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting ban has now merged in the order of the High Court when the High Court had passed a specific order granting bail to the respondent on furnishing bail bound in the sum of rupees one lakh with one surety He has placed reliance on Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 and M/s Gojer Brothers (P) Limited v Ratan Lal Singh, AIR 1974 SC 1380. He has also placed reliance on State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala etc. , AIR 1979 SC 87, in support of his contention that the High Court also has no power to review its own order and resort to provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not permissible when there is a specific prohibition in the laid Code for reviewing its own order.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has tried to distinguish the aforesaid judgments and has contended that at the time the High Court decide the petition of the respondent the question whether Additional Sessions Judge bad passed correct order of bail or not was not under consideration. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Anwar Jahan and Another v. Mohammad Osman Ali