B. P. DAS. J.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (in short Cr. P. C.) is directed against the order dated 9/11/2000 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khallikate, in G. R Case No. 341 of 1998 taking cognizance against the petitioners.

( 2 ) BEREFT of unnecessary details the facts leading to the present application are that basing on an F. I. R lodged on 28/11/1998 at Rambha Police Station, a case under Sections 323/ 379/437/34. I. P. C. was registered against the accused persons including the present petitioners being Rambha P. S. Case No. 145/98 and the same was subsequently registered as G. R. Case No. 341/98 on the file of the learned J. M. F. C. , Khallikote. After the investigation was completed final form was submitted in terms of Section 173. Cr. P. C. for the offences under Sections 143/323/325/427149. I. P. C. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences by order dated 6/3/1999. On 9/11/2000 the informant filed an application before the learned Magistrate with a prayer to take cognizance under Sections 148/452/ 354/325/323/395/427/149. I. P. C. The learned Magistrate considering the aforesaid application passed the impugned order (Annexure-2) taking cognizance against the petitioner and others under Sections 452/459/395. I. P. C. in addition to the other offences of which cognizance had already been taken and fixed a date for production of the accused persons. This order is under challenge in the present application on the grounds namely. (1) the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance for the second time because of the reason that the order of cognizance is a final order and review/ alteration/ amendment of such order is not permissible; and (ii) no primafacie case was made out under section 395. I. P. C. During the course of argument it was submitted that Section 362. Cr. P. C. is a bar to alter/amend the order.

( 3 ) LET me take up the first ground for consideration. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court in District Manager. F. C. I. v. Jayashankar Mund1, wherein it was held thus: the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Berhampur hed no jurisdiction to review his own order passed earlier and practically setting aside the same thereby assuming the role of a court of revision. If he had any doubt about the correctness of the earlier order it was open to him to draw the attention of the Court of Sessions or the High Court so as to initiate a suo motu criminal revision under Sections 399 and 401 of the Code In the above case final report was submitted by the investigating agency finding therein that no primafacie case for an offence under Section 409. I. P. C. was made out. Thereafter a protest petition was filed by the informant on perusal of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 406. I. P. C. issued summons to the accused persons. The accused persons challenged the same before the C. J. M. who after hearing both the parties came to hold that the protest petition was in the nature of a complaint petition under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Cr. P. C. and after acceptance of the final report on the vigilance case the court could not have taken cognizance on the basis of the protest petition. Accordingly he reviewed the order of cognizance passed on 14/12/1983, set aside the same and dismissed the protest petition and discharged the accused persons. This order was negatived by this Court in the aforesaid decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon another decision of the Apex Court in Han Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa2, wherein it was held that There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review the judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the clo