' By way of filing instant petition, Iqbal petitioner seeks review of order of this Court, dated 10-11- 2000 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,153 of 2000 whereby order, dated 6-5-2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Abbottabad confirming anticipatory bail of the petitioner, was recalled and bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The petition has arisen in the following circumstances:-- ' Mst. Parveen daughter of Shah Zaman was married to Iqbal deceased. The couple lived together for some time but there was no smooth sailing between the two and Mst. Parveen left the house of her husband and started living with his brothers Iqbal petitioner and Muhammad Farooq. On the day of occurrence, i.e, 18-2-2000 at about 18-45 hours Iqbal went to the house of the petitioner and from the roof-top of the adjoining house of one Jehandad requested his wife to come back and join him. In the meanwhile the petitioner duly armed with .30 bore pistol alongwith his brother Muhammad Farooq appeared there and started abusing the victim. The petitioner thereafter fired at the victim with his pistol. The matter was reported to the police the same day by the injured himself and accordingly F.I.R. No,50 dated 18-2-2000 was registered at Police Station City Abbottabad under section 324/34, P.P.C. Which was subsequently changed to section 302, P.P.C. In view of the expiry of the victim on 10-4-2000. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner moved the Court of Session, Abbottabad for grant of pre-arrest bail. The application was accepted and pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner which was subsequently confirmed by order, dated 6-5-2000 on the basis of a compromise. Mst. Rehmat Jan, mother of the deceased moved an application in this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 6-5-2000. The application was accepted and the bail order was set aside and the petitioner was sent to judicial lock-up to await his trial as an under trial prisoner.
2. Mr. Shabbir Hussain Shah; Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended inter alia, that a Fatwa on the question of compromise issued by a renowned scholar and Khatib of Hazara, based upon verses contained in Sura Baqra of Holy Qur'an, was placed on record in support of bail application but no reference of that Fatwa has been given in the order of this Court, sought to be reviewed which has materially prejudiced the interest of the petitioner. The learned counsel contended in the alternative that the observations made in the aforesaid order be modified to the extent that it shall not stand in the way of petitioner for seeking his release on regular basis before the proper forum. I am afraid the submissions of the learned counsel are not tenable. It has been contended with justification by Qazi Salik Rauf, Advocate for the State assisted by Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan Swati, Advocate for respondent No,2 that in view of the bar contained in section 369, Cr.P.C. High Court is precluded to review its own order. To augment the pleas, reliance has been placed on Maulana Muhammad Azam Tariq, M.N.A. v. Khurshid Ali and another 1996 PCr.LJ 119 (Lahore), Juan Sullivan v. The State 1971 SCM R 618, Mst. Shabana Niazi v. Muhammad Khalilur Rehman and 2 others 1997 PCr.LJ 746, Gulzar Hassan Shah v. Ghulam Murtaza and 4 others PLD 1970 SC 335 and Iqtidar Shah Jafri and others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 222 (Lahore). The case-law referred above has direct bearing on the controversy involved and clearly stipulates that High Court passing order has no jurisdiction to alter or review except to the extent of a clerical error.When attention of learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to this aspect of the matter he submitted that the High Court possesses jurisdiction to review its own order and the jurisdiction is not ousted under exceptional circumstances. He relied on Amiruddin v. State PLD 1977 SC 602 and Gulzar Hassan Shah v. Ghulam Murtaza and 4 others PLD 1970 SC 335. I have gone through these rulings and I am of the opinion that they are of no help to the petitioner. The rulings speak of the different situation and proceeds on different facts.
3. There can be no two opinions that section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Confers inherent powers upon this Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But it does not give any power to make correction/clarification of order passed by the Court. There is a specific provision of law which deals with this aspect of the matter and that is incorporated in section 369, Cr.P.C. It is specifically and categorically mentioned in the said section that no Court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error. A perusal of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the State prove conclusively that High Court cannot review its own order passed in criminal jurisdiction. It is not denied that the Court becomes functus officio after it passes and signs the order.
4. Resultantly, I hold that petition is not maintainable as no clarification/correction or review of any order passed by a criminal Court is warranted by law. The petition fails which is hereby dismissed.