1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1120 OF 2007 Mahesh Tolaram Kukreja .......Applicant/Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors ....... Respondents. Mr. Mahesh R. Jethmalani Sr. adv. With Mr. Madhur R. Baya for the Applicant Mrs. P.P. Shinde APP for the Respondents. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 04TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: 1. By the present Application the writ petitioner, in Writ Petition No.1120/07 has prayed for recalling the order passed by this Court on 19-12-2007. By the order dated 19-12-2007, this court had granted a limited relief to the petitioner, which was in the nature of stay of the arrest warrant for a period of one month, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court at Kurla, Mumbai. The petitioner is a resident of New Jercy, U. S. A. While arguing the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 has submitted that the petitioner will present himself before the court within one month from the date of the order and stay of the arrest warrant was only sought for a period of one month, which was granted by this court. The limited prayer was not even opposed by the investigating officer, as the petitioner had undertaken to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court, which issued the arrest warrant. After the petition came to be disposed of the present Criminal Application has been filed. The main ground on which the application has been filed is that the applicant's advocate without any instructions from the applicant, and beyond his authority made the concession before this court, which resulted in passing of the impugned order. The learned counsel Mr. Jethmalani appearing for the applicant has invited my attention to the affidavit filed by the applicant, wherein it is stated that he had not authorised the counsel to make the concession that the applicant would present himself before the trial court by remaining present within one month. The question thus posed is whether the statement was made by the counsel for the petitioner under an authority from the applicant or otherwise ? 2. The Respondent State has opposed the application by filing a detailed reply. The learned A. P. P. appearing for the State has submitted that the present application is wholly mis- 3 conceived and is not tenable in view of the provisions of section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 3286 wherein it is held that recall of an order is not permissible even if the same is passed in breach of principles of natural justice. In view of section 362 of Cr.P.C. this court has no jurisdiction to alter or review the final order disposing of the writ petition. Though the prayer in the application is for recalling the order, in substance what is being sought is review of the order. The learned A.P.P. has also contended that the disputed question of fact raised in the Criminal Application, as to whether the concession made available by the counsel was so authorised by the applicant or otherwise, cannot be gone into in these proceedings. There does appear substance in this submission as well. In view of the provisions of section 362 of the Cr.P.C. the Criminal Application is dismissed. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J)