We have heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent.

This revision petition has been placed before the Division Bench of this Courtt on being referred by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Singh since retired) by his order dated 18.7.97 for referring the matter for a final decision by a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in Haji Sabajiuddin Vs. Banamali Das reported in (1982) 1 GLR 722 since the learned Single Judge respectfully disagreed with the said judgment while deciding the Crl. Misc. Case No. 107/97 (Crl. Misc. Case No. 4(SH)/97) arising out of Crl. Revision No. 459/96 wherein the solitary question of law involved was as to whether the court has the power to review "its judgment or final order disposing of a case" by exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') notwithstanding the specific bar under Section 362 of the Code to alter or review of such judgment and final order of disposal.

2. It would be pertinent to narrate the background of the case which has necessitated making this reference. The learned Single Judge on 27.6.97 having dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 459/ 96 for non-prosecution, passed the following order :-

" This criminal revision was listed for hearing earlier. It has been adjourned on account of non-availability of the learned counsel for the petitioners on 9.6.97 and on 13.6.97. To-day also the learned counsel for the petitioners are not present. No mention has been made for adjournment of the case from the side of the counsel for the writ petitioners. Sri SR Sen, learned counsel for the respondent is present.

The Criminal Revision relates to quashing of the complaint proceeding pending against the petitioners as C.R. Case No. 780(S)/96 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong. The above Criminal case has arisen from the complaint lodged by Mr. V.S. Jafa, opposite party in this Criminal Revision under Sections 500/506/120 of the IPC. An interim order was passed by this Court on exparte motion made by the petitioners on 23.9.96, as a result the criminal proceedings in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in C.R. Case No. 780(S)/1996 have been stayed. From the ordersheet it appears further that after obtaining the interim stay order the petitioners have not been taking any interest in the case. On 11.3.97 the case was adjourned on account of non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Again on 31.3.1997 the case was adjourned on the ground of the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioners. On 9.6.97 also for the same reason the case was adjourned. The petitioners, thus, appear to have lost their interest in the case after obtaining the stay order. I see no ground to await for the petitioners to argue the case, especially when no request on their behalf has been made. Thus the Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. The exparte interim order dated 23.9.1996 is discharged."

3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order for non-prosecution, an application has been preferred by the Revision Petitioners seeking for modification/ alteration of the said order on the ground that the petitioners were not at fault for non-appearance of their counsel engaged in the case at the time of hearing of the said revision. The said engaged Guwahati based Lawyer, with whom the petitioners were in constant touch, had started from Guwahati to Shillong to appear and argue the case. But due to certain development faced by the said lawyer he could not accomplish his visit for which reason the default in appearance of the said counsel was occasioned. The petitioners taking exception to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the dismissal order to the effect that the petitioners had lost interest in the case after obtaining the stay order