HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) KISHAN Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Annexure P/1, and the order passed by District Magistrate, Jalandhar Annexure P/2.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Jaspal Singh son of the petitioner who was undergoing imprisonment was allowed temporary release on parole for 28 days on 13.9.1988 on his furnishing the requisite surety bonds. The surety bond was furnished on his behalf by the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The convict was to surrender before the jail authorities on or before 13.10.1988. He, however, did not surrender on the date fixed and thereafter a notice was served on the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of bond should not be forfeited. The petitioner admitted that he furnished the surety bond but showed his inability to produce his son. The amount of the bond was, thus, forfeited and he was directed to deposit the amount within one month, by District Magistrate, Jalandhar vide his order dated 12.3.1990. Against this order Kishan Singh-petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 15.1.1992. The petitioner alleged that District Magistrate, Jalandhar had wrongly forfeited the bond furnished by him on the ground that he had failed to produce his son before the jail authorities on 13.10.1988. In fact when his son came on parole he was apprehended by the police and was tortured. Fearing danger to life at the hands of the local police his son absconded from the village and he was not in a position to trace him. Subsequently he gave information to the Sessions Judge regarding the whereabouts of his son but that fact was not taken into consideration and the whole of the amount of bond was forfeited.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of a revision against the impugned order and the second revisions was barred under the provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner could not assail the same order under the garb of invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In support of his contention the learned State counsel placed reliance on the case of Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (Supplementary) Supreme Court Case 132, wherein it was observed :- "Where a revision petition is dismissed by the Sessions Court, a second revision would not lie to the High Court. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of Section 397(3) of the Code could be labelled as one under Section 482." In another recent authority of the Apex Court i.e. Dharampal and others v. Smt. Ramshri and others, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 696, this question was again considered and it was held that second revision by the same party was barred under provisions of Section 397(3), Cr.P.C. and inherent powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code could not be utilised for exercising powers which was expressly armed by the Code. In view of these authorities the present petition is not maintainable.;