IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.62 of 2006 1. Ashok Lal, son of late Mohan Lal. 2. Manoj Kumar, son of late Mohan Lal. 3. Smt. Uma Devi, wife of late Mohan Lal. 4. Asha Devi, D/o late Mohan Lal. (All residents of Mohalla- Das Lane, Bhushan Gali, East Lohanipur, P.S.-Kadamkuan, Patna) ………….Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Kiran Devi, wife of Shri Pappu Kumar Chandrawanshi, resident of Mohalla- Das Lane, Bhushan Gali, East Lohanipur, P.S.-Kadamkuan, Patna. …….Opposite Parties ----------- 6. 04.11.2011 The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2005. The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, XI, Patna in Cr. Appeal No.97 of 2004 by which they have been directed to vacate the house in question within one month and give possession of the land to the complainant/opposite party no.2, failing which they will be evicted from the house in question in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioners were 2 convicted under Sections 323 and 448 of the I.P.C. and they were released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and they were directed to keep peace and tranquility in the society for one year and in disobedience of the same, they will be liable to be punished by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 24.05.2004 passed in complaint case no.113C/2002, Trial No.904/2004. The petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.97/2004 against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned trial court. After hearing the appeal on merit, the conviction part of the trial court’s judgment was confirmed and so far the order regarding keeping peace and maintaining tranquility for one year was set aside by the learned appellate court vide the judgment and order dated 24.02.2005 and the Cr. Appeal was disposed of. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar No.1, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Uma Shanker Pd. Singh, the learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the disposal of the aforesaid Cr. 3 Appeal No.97/2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2005, he had no locus standi to entertain the appeal on the petition filed by the opposite party no.2 after about five months of the disposal of the appeal. He has further submitted that no court is empowered to alter its judgment when it has signed its judgment for final order disposed of a case, he will not alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error as provided under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., but in this case, the learned appellate court has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2005 under Section 456 (2) of the Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that even under this provision, the learned appellate court has power to give any direction when the case was pending and not after disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. He has also submitted that proceeding in pursuance to the impugned order was stayed by order dated 2.02.2006 passed in this criminal revision. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the 4 petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. The impugned order has been passed after the disposal of the Cr. Appeal No.97/2004 when the appellate court has no occasion to entertain any such petition filed by the opposite party no.2. Any order under Section 456 (2) can be passed while the appeal or the revision or the reference is pending before the court. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. This revision application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)