The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not limited by the bar against second revisions under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., and the High Court can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. even after the Sessions Judge has exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., provided that the High Court is satisfied that there has been an abuse of process or that the ends of justice require its intervention.

( 1 ) I have been consistently holding that under sub-section 2 of Sec. 397 and sub-section 3 of Sec. 397 Cr. P. C. where a revision or second revision is not maintainable this court should not invoke of the Code of Criminal Procedure because Sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 397 and Sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 397 Cr. P. C. specifically prohibits failing of revision or second revision respectively. To my mind the provisions of Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked. But, Dr. Bheemaraju has brought to my notice a ruling of my learned brother Punnayya, J. in taddi Ramarao and Others vs. Kondi Aseeravadam in which the learned judge has held that inspite of the fact that section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. debars a revision against an order in an Interlocutory Application nevertheless in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr. P. C. this court has jurisdiction to invoke the said powers to prevent miscarriage of jusdce. Dr. Bheemaraju further states that there are some other decisions of the Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court. In these circumstances the question as to whether this application is maintainable or not may be placed before a Bench of this court. The Office will, therefore, place the papers before My Lord the Chief Justice for obtaining orders. It would be better if the directions are obtained before the vacation. ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon ble the Chief Justice ). The question that arises in this case is whether it would be open to a patty to invoke the provisions of Section 482 Cr. P. C 1973, when he seeks to file a second revision in the High Court under Section 397 (3 ). Another question, which incidentally arises, is whether sub-section (3) of Section 397 takes, away the jurisdiction of this Court to suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a case where the Sessions Judge had already exercised his revisional jurisdiction under sub-section (3) on an application made to htm under that sub-section. Having regard to the importance of the questions involved, we direct these S. R. Ns. to be posted before a Bench of three judges. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Full Bench delivered by the Hon ble the Chief Justice ).

( 2 ) WHILE referring these. matters to a Bench of three judges, the Division bench consisting, of Obul Reddi, C J. and Gangadhara Rao J. , posed the two following questions;" (1) Whether it would be open to a parly to invoke the provisions of Sec. 482 Cr. P. C, 1973, when he seeks to file a second revision in the High Court under Sec. 397 (3)? (2) Whether sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 397 takes away the jurisdiction of this Court (High Coart) to suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a case where the Sessions Judge had already exercised his revisional jurisdiction under sub-sec, (3) on an application made to him under that sub-section".

( 3 ) EARLIER Muktadar, J. had referred these cases to a Division Bench in View of the conflicting decisions on these aspects of this court and other high Courts. The Division Bench though that the two questions are very important and should be decided by a Full Bench.

( 4 ) APART from the different view points expresses on these questions by learned single Judges of this Court and of other High Courts, the Supreme court itself in a Bench of two learned Judges held the view in Amarnth vs. State of Haryana"section 482 contains the inherent powers of the court and does not confer, any new powers but preserves the powers which the High Court already possessed. A harmonious construction of ss. 397 and 4182 would, lead to the irressistable conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred under Sec. 397 (2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of Section 482 would not apply. In is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject- matter. Where there is an express provision barring a particular remedy, the Co