2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 6753-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.11.2008 *** Ram Lal & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. M/s Paul Merchants .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 16.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, in respect of revival of complaint No.207 of 1996, preferred by respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against them, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.9.2005. Despite service of notice of the petition to the respondent to appear before the Court on 23.9.2008, none had appeared on his behalf and in the interest of justice the case was adjourned for today. Today also the position remains the same and there is no representation for and on behalf of the respondent-complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the paper book carefully. The grouse of the petitioners is that once the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Magistrate, no authority was vested with that very Court itself to recall its own order. There is force in the contention so raised on behalf of the petitioners. There is absolutely no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering a Magistrate to review or recall an order passed by him. In the case Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2432, while dealing with 2 such a situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code empowering a Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him and inherent powers under Section 561-A are only given to High Courts and unlike Section 151 CPC subordinate criminal courts have no such powers. In the light of discussion above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction to recall the order dismissing the complaint, which has become functus officio with the passing of order dated 17.9.2005. That being the position, the subsequent proceedings taken in the said complaint by dint of impugned revival order dated 16.3.2007 also cannot sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.3.2007 and consequent proceedings conducted thereafter are set aside. However, if so advised, the respondent may avail appropriate remedy permissible under law. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 26,2008 Jiten