JUDGMENT

Bennet, J. - This is an application on behalf of one Kunji Lal asking for review of an order of this Court dismissing an application in Criminal Revision which had been signed and sealed before the application for review was made. The first question was whether such an application for review lies as learned Counsel contends u/s 561-A, Criminal P.C., or whether such an application is barred by the provisions of Section 369, Criminal P.C. In the Criminal Procedure Code. Act 10 of 1882. Section 369, appeared in the form:

No Court, other than a High Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except as provided in Section 395 or to correct a clerical error.

2. This section was reproduced in somewhat similar terms in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898:

No Court, other than a High Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except as provided in Sections 395 and 484 or to correct a clerical error.

3. In 1923 there was introduced into the Code a new Section 561-A which laid down:

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

4. It was contended by learned Counsel that this section gave a right of review and that the section being perfectly general would apply to Section 369 and override it. At the same time that this section was introduced in 1923, there was an alteration made in Section 369 which now reads as follows:

Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, or in the case of a High Court established by Royal Charter, by the Letters Patent of such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except* * *to correct a clerical error.

5. It is to be noted that in Section 369 there is no reference to review being allowed by Section 561-A. The reference in Section 369 as it stands at present to the Letters Patent is in the case of Allahabad to Sections 18 and 19 which provide that where there is an original criminal trial by the High Court the trial Court may reserve any point or points of law for the opinion of the High Court and on such a reservation:

The said High Court shall have full power and authority to review the case or such part of it as may be necessary.

6. This is also' provided in the Criminal Procedure Code in Section 434 and the same words "review the case" are used in Sub-section (2), Section 434. There is also provision in Section 395 for a review of an order where a sentence of whipping cannot be inflicted and in Section 484 there is provision for the Court accepting an apology for an interruption. These three sections of the Code, 395, 484 and 434 are evidently the sections which are referred to by the words "save as otherwise provided by this Code" in Section 369, Learned Counsel however argued that Section 561-A could also come under these words "Save as otherwise provided by this Code," but in Section 561-A there is no definite provision for a review of judgment. I am of opinion that review is a definite method of procedure and that if the legislature intended by the Amending Act, Act 18 of 1923, to make a provision in the Code for a review there would have been a definite section dealing with a right of review and laying down the conditions under which that right could be exercised. In the case of the CPC there is a definite provision for review in Section 114 and there is an order of the Code, Order 47, dealing with the circumstances under which a review is permitted. If a review were intended by the Criminal Procedure Code there would have been some definite provision of this nature.

7. I now come to the rulings on the point. Learned Counsel relied on two rulings : one reported in Mathura Das v. Emperor 1927 Lah. 139. and the other in Emperor v. Shiva