O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 20^th March, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, whereby a petition filed by the appellant seeking recall of an order dated 21^st March, 2023 was dismissed.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 were the accused in a complaint arising out of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 477A and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were acquitted by the trial court on 16^th March, 2015. An appeal was filed by the appellant, which was dismissed on 5th November, 2016 by the Sessions Court.

4. The appellate order of the Sessions Court dated 5^th November, 2016 was Signature Not Verified challenged by the appellant before the High Court in a criminal revisional Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2025.02.10

19:36:24 IST Reasoan:pplication¹ under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal No. Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 64 of 17 Procedure, 1973². However, when the criminal revisional application was taken up for consideration, a prayer was made on behalf of the appellant to permit him withdraw the same with liberty to file an appeal against the order recording acquittal. The High Court granted the prayers without perhaps realizing that a further appeal is not permissible under the provisions of the Cr. PC.

5. Having withdrawn the criminal revisional application and there being no further scope for filing of a further appeal, wise counsel dawned on the appellant. He then approached the High Court with the application for recall, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant cites before us the decision in Ganesh Patel vs. Umakant Rajoria³ in support of the proposition that although Section 362, Cr. PC bars a petition for substantive review, it does not bar a petition for procedural review. He also stresses that there is a difference between recall of an order and review of an order, which has clearly been delineated in the coordinate Bench decision of this Court in Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb⁴. Since the application, in substance, was an application for recall of the order granting withdrawal and did not seek a review of the said order, and since the remedy against the improper acquittal would be lost for all times to come, because of improper advice given to the appellant, he submits that this was a fit and proper case where the High Court in exercise of its discretion ought to have allowed the prayer for recall and restored the criminal revisional application to file.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the appellant had approached the High Court with the application under Section

2 Cr. PC

3 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2050 (1999) 4 SCC 396

362, Cr. PC belatedly and there being no explanation for the abnormal delay, they would be severely prejudiced if the criminal revisional application were to be contested by them once again. He, accordingly, prays that we refrain from interfering with the impugned order.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials on record.

9. The appellant had rightly approached the High Court with the criminal revisional application challenging the appellate judgment and order of the Sessions Court confirming the acquittal recorded by the trial court. Acting on improper advice, the appellant withdrew the revisional application and sought liberty to file an appeal (second appeal in the series), which the Cr. PC did not permit. Such prayers were granted though, to our mind, the High Court itself ought to have refrained from granting liberty to the appellant to file an appeal, which the law does not provide, and alerted him that withdrawing of the criminal revisional application on the ground that he wishes to file an appeal would bring an end to his pursuit to have the acquittal reversed. Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to do so but possibly because of lack of proper application of mind arising out