ORDER

Seth, J. - This is an application for the re-hearing of an appeal which was decided and dismissed on 26th June 1948, under the following circumstances.

2. On an application being made, a date was fixed for the hearing of the appeal. That date happened to be 5th July 1948, By a mistake of the office, however, the cage was listed for hear-ing earlier and was heard and disposed of on 25th June 1918, ten days before the date fixed for its hearing. Mr. Rai Rajeshwari Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant, under the belief that the case could not be taken up before 5th July 1943, was not at Allahabad and, there, fore, no appearance was made on behalf of the appellant when the case was heard. The appel. lant was, thus, deprived of an opportunity of being heard before the case was decided against him. There'cannot be the least doubt that these facts constitute a sufficient cause for setting aside the proceedings, starting with the hearing of the appeal and terminating with judgment, inasmuch as by a mistake on the part of some clerks of this Court great injustice has been done to the appellant, as he was deprived of an opportunity of being heard. The hearing of the appeal, under the circumstances indicated above, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court, although it was not deliberate and only inadvertent.

3. learned Counsel, appearing for the Crown, has not contested that sufficient cause has been made out for the re-hearing of the appeal. His contention, however, is that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant a rehearing. He has relied upon Section S69, Criminal P. C. which 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.

The contention is that this Court has got no jurisdiction to review a judgment in a criminal case. The learned Counsel has also relied upon Section 480, Criminal P. C, which runs as follows:

Judgment and orders passed by an Appellate Court upon appeal shall be final, except in the cases provided for in Section 417 and Chap. XXXII.

It will be convenient to dispose of the latter objection first, namely, the objection based upon B. 430, Criminal P. C. The expression "judgment shall be final" or expressions to the similar effect are also to be found in statutes other than the Criminal Procedure Code and they have coma up for interpretation before this Court in several cases. It has been consistently held by this Court that all that such expressions mean, is that the judgment shall not be open to any further appeal and that the powers of High Court to interfere with it otherwise than in appeal are not taken away : vide Shah Chaturbhuj Vs. Shah Mauji Ram, AIR 1938 All 456 and Ashraf Vs. L. Saith Mal . There is, thus, no force in the contention that Section 430, Criminal P. 0. is a bar to the granting of this application.

4. So far as the provisions of Section 369, Criminal P. C. are concerned, the first thing to notice is that by the terms of the section itself, they have been subjected to the other provisions of the Code, It may be noticed that the section opens with the words "save as otherwise provided by this Code," It is, thus, obvious that Section 869, Criminal P. C, baa been subjected, inter alia, to the provisions of Section 561A, Criminal P. C. The real question for consideration, therefore, is not whether Section 369, Criminal P. C. creates a bar but whether this Court possesses an inherent power to rehear the appeal under the circumstances of this case.

5. It has been held over and over again by various High Courts, including this Court, that a High Court does not possess any general power to review its own decisions or judgments in criminal cases. This was so held even before the amendment of Section 369, Criminal P. C. in the year 1