The High Court has the power to recall a judgment passed without hearing the accused.

Six accused including Tribhuwan were convicted for various offences including [one punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad, on 1-5-75. All the six accused preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence in the High Court at Allahabad through Shri Keshav Sahai, Advocate. It, however, appears that the appeal was subsequently transferred to the Lucknow Bench for disposal.

2. The judgment itself shows that at Lucknow no counsel appeared for the appellants and notices were, therefore, sent to all the appellants asking them to engage another lawyer for the hearing of the appeal. Notices sent to the accused-appellant Tribhuwan were returned with the report that he was not found

at home and that his address was not known. The Honble Judge hearing this appeal, however, proceeded to hear it on behalf of appellant Tribhuwan also saying that his role was similar to that of all other appellants except for the offence under Section 147, of the Indian Penal Code and that they had carefully gone through the record with reference to his particular defence in addition to having the advantage o I hearing the arguments of the two Advocates who were appearing on behalf of the other accused. After hearing, the appeal was dismissed by this Court on 31-7-84.

3. On 16-8-84 appellant-applicant Tribhuwan appeared through his counsel and moved an application for setting aside the judgment and for being - permitted to be heard through a counsel in the appeal. According to him after having been released on bail he had gone out and took up an appointment at Jullandhar. This fact was known to his sureties. No attempt was made either to send the notice to him or to his sureties with the result that he could not appear in the court and get his appeal argued. In this case where he has been awarded imprisonment for life he had a right to address his appeal and the order passed against him without hearing him is liable to be set aside.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. The right to be heard in a criminal appeal is a right statutorily re cognised by Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even other wise the courts have extended this right even to situations where any persons right is likely to be affected by a decision even taken by the administrative authorities.

6. Any order passed without hearing is patently against the tenents of natural justice. In a case like the present one where the decision relates to confirmation of a sentence of imprisonment for life denial of the right to be heard his at the very root of the decision.

7. The only objection raised on behalf of the State was that Sec tion 362, Cr. P. C. bars any review or alteration of a judgment pronounced by a criminal court and this bar applies even to the High Courts. As a result of this, it was urged that the inherent powers cannot be used to recall an order passed by this court, would have been the nature of the circumstances in which such an order was passed.

8. Section 482, Cr. P. C. recognises the existence of inherent powers in High Courts. However, the proposition that no inherent powers can be used against explicit statutory provisions cannot be disputed. In case, Section 362, Cr. P. C. explicitly forbids recalling of an order passed in the

circumstances aforesaid, Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be taken recourse to for overriding the provisions of Section 362, Cr. P. C.

However, Section 362, Cr. P. C. runs as follows:

"362. Court not to alter judgment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. "

9. This provision forbids altering or review of any judgment or final order, disposing of a case, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error.

10. The connotation