PANWAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 24. 4. 2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Revision No. 13/2000 whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18. 8. 2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran in Criminal Case No. 72/96 whereby the trial Court framed charges for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts, which are relevant for the decision of this petition are that one Anwar Khan lodged a First Information Report (F. I. R.) with Police Station, Pokaran stating therein that he is adopted son of one Najaria. It was alleged that land bearing Khasra No. 609/37 measuring 60 bighas situated in village Khelana was recorded in the name of his father and after the death of his father, the said land is recorded in his name and he is owner and is in cultivatory possession of the said land. It was alleged that one Muke Khan showing himself to be adopted son of Najaria, transferred the land in favour of the petitioner by a forged document. The crime report was investigated by the police and after investigation, police filed challan against the petitioner and co-accused Abdul Aziz and Ghewar Khan in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran. Vide order dt. 18. 8. 2000 the trial Court framed charges for offences noticed above against the petitioner and other co-accused. The petitioner filed a revision petition u/s. 397 (1) Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition by the impugned order dated 24. 4. 2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner for any of the offences for which the charges have been framed against him by the trial Court. It was further contended that the petitioner purchased the land at the prevailing rate and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner entered into conspiracy with Muke Khan, Abdul Aziz & Ghewar Khan. The petitioner and the complainant are resident of the same area and Muke Khan impersonating himself to be the son of Najaria, knowing that he is not son of Najaria, transferred the land owned and recorded in the name of Najaria, father of the complainant. The attesting witnesses of the sale wee also of the same area. The sale deed executed by the accused Muke Khan impersonating himself to be Anwar Khan is also on record. The learned trial Court taking into account the entire material placed before it, prima facie came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material against the petitioner to proceed against him for the charges levelled against him and accordingly, framed the charges. In my considered opinion, there is prima facie sufficient material showing the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime.
(3.) IT was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor (P. P.) that the petitioner has already availed one revision u/sec. 397 (1) Cr. P. C. before the learned Sessions Judge and this being the second revision, may be under the garb of petition u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. , is barred by the provisions of Sec. 397 (3) Cr. P. C. Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. provides that if an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Since the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, u/sec. 397 (1) Cr. P. C. has been rejected, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take second revision petition by invoking inherent powers of Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. specifically bars second revision and it is settled law that inherent powers u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be utilised for exercising powers, which are expressly barred by sub-section (3) of Sec. 397 Cr. P. C. The scope of sub-section (3) of Sec. 397 Cr. P. C. and inherent powers of High Court u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. came to be considered by Hon'ble Supreme court in Krishnan & Anr. vs. Krishnaveni & Anr. (1 ). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Sec. 397 (3) of the Code, a person - accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Sec. 397 (1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Sec. 397 (3) or Section 397 (2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Sec. 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate required correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or not prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Sec. 397 (1) read with Sec. 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. " ;