IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 272 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 SHRI AVDHOOT P. AMBE, MARGAO-GOA. ... Applicant Versus SHRI SAYED ASHRAF ALI, MARGAO-GOA. ... Respondent Shri Judas Chagas Silva holding for Shri Sanjay M. Chodankar, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 29th September, 2009 ORAL ORDER Heard. By the present application, the applicant whose appeal was dismissed on 27-7-2009 is seeking for setting aside the said Order of dismissal and restoration of the said appeal to file. The appeal came to be dismissed on 27-7-2009 as the applicant did not appear before this Court inspite of several opportunities being given. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant has placed reliance on a reported decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Bagri v. Rajendra Kumar Luhariwala and another(2009(1) SCALE 721) and also on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. and others v. Union of India and another(AIR 2007 SC 1481). In the first decision, it is the Apex Court which set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits. In the second decision, the High Court itself has entertained an application for restoration and the matter was heard on the same day but was rejected summarily. On facts, both the decisions are of no assistance to the applicant. This Court in M/s. Venus Steel Products v. Shri Michael Francis Pinheiro(2005 ALL MR(Cri.) 2753) has stated as follows:- "The applicant's application has been styled as an application for restoration. The concept of restoration is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The only remedy which might have been available to the applicant under the Code was either of recalling the order of dismissal or reviewing the same. As already stated, the Order dated 21.4.04 is a final order disposing of the criminal revision application filed by the applicant. The same cannot be recalled or reviewed in view of the specific bar created by Section 362 of the Code and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. Again, in the case of Smt. Amita Grover v. State of Goa through P.I. Calangute Police Station and another(unreported decision dated 11-8-2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No/189 of 2008) it was observed as follows:- "There can't be two opinions as far as this Court is concerned, the Order dated 28-7-2008 is a final order putting to an end to the proceedings filed for cancellation of bail and therefore the contention that it is an interlocutory order cannot be accepted". "Section 362 makes it clear that a Court cannot alter or review its judgment or final order after it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. The scheme of the Code, in our opinion, is clear that as a general rule, as soon as the judgment is pronounced or order is made by a Court, it becomes functus officio (ceases to have control over the case) and has no power to review, override, alter or interfere with it". "The Section starts with the words "save as otherwise provided by this Code". Thus, if the Code provides for alteration, such power can be exercised. For instance, sub-section (2) of Section 127 which provides for the same. But in the absence of express power, alteration or modification of judgment or order is not permissible". In the light of the above two decisions after the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal, this Court has become functus officio as such cannot entertain the present application. Application is therefore hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.