Key Points: - The Court has inherent power to recall orders passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice [judgement_subject]. - Orders passed without issuing notice and hearing the respondent violate natural justice (!) . - The Court has the inherent power to recall orders passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice, as established in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [11000501620008]. - The power of recall is distinct from the power to alter or review a judgment [11000501620008]. - Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits a court from altering or reviewing a judgment or final order, except for clerical or arithmetical errors [11000501620005]. - Even the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has no authority to alter or review a judgment after it has been signed, unless it was pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court in Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. emphasized the supreme importance of adhering to the audi alteram partem rule (no one should be condemned unheard) [11000501620010]. - The applications were allowed, and the orders dated 05.02.2016 and 29.01.2016 were modified as directed by the Court [Final Decision]. - The Court directed the Trial Court to afford two dates for the conclusion of cross-examination of CW1 and to list all matters together, in pursuance of an earlier order for joint trial [11000501620011]. - The Court found that the orders were passed without issuing notice and hearing the respondent, violating natural justice [Fact of the Case].

What is the inherent power of the court to recall orders?

What are the implications of violating natural justice principles when passing court orders?

How does Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affect the power of a court to alter or review its judgments?