Interpreting the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Code, the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal MANU/SC/0214/1993 (supra) has held that even within the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, a power cannot be exercised by the Court which is expressly barred under the Code and a second revision at the instance of the same party is not maintainable. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Saxena 1998 All LJ 1553 : 1988 Cri LJ 3794 (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has followed the same principles. He has, however, with the help of Full Bench decision of this Court in H. K. Raval v. Nidhi Prakash MANU/UP/0432/1989 has also observed that once a revisional power has been exercised on the application of the accused recourse to second revision by exercising power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be bad. In Dharam Pal's case (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the principle that second revision application before the High Court should not be entertained in the garb of a petition for exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Gr. P, C. but at the same time this bar has been created for the party who had moved the revisional Court of Sessions Judge and the second revision is also filed by him before the High Court. It has been observed in para 4 of the Judgment "Hence, the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of first party." {Para 8}
9. In the present case, the first party Shri Ram Chaubey had filed revision against the order of the Magistrate dated 21-12-1985 and the revisionist before this Court is the second party-Kailash Nath; therefore, this revision at the instance of the second party cannot be said to be not maintainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Criminal Revn. No. 886 of 1986
Decided On: 10.12.2003
Kailash Nath Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Umeshwar Pandey, J.
