( 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, the