( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who was the complainant in C. C. No. 466 of 1994 on the file of the court of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, questioning the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 30-6-1998 in the said case, as confirmed by the V Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi, in crl. R. P. No. 65 of 1998.

( 2 ) THE facts which led to the filing of this petition are that the 1st respondent herein who is the accused in C. C. No. 466 of 1994 issued a cheque bearing No. 110474 dated 10-12-1992 for Rs. 4 lakhs and on presentation, the petitioner was informed by the banker that the cheque was returned with an endorsement, "insufficient funds". Pursuant to that, the petitioner herein filed a complaint against the 1st respondent herein for the alleged offences punishable under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable instruments Act. While so, on 30-6-1998, as the complainant i. e. , the petitioner herein was absent, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint observing as follows: "complainant and the accused absent. Absence of the accused is condoned in a petition under Section 317 of the Code of criminal Procedure. No representation was made on behalf of the complainant. He was absent in the previous dates of hearing also. It appears, he has no interest in prosecuting the case. In the circumstances, the case is dismissed and the accused is acquitted. "

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal procedure and filed Crl. R. P. No. 65 of 1998 on the file of the court of V Addl. District judge, Tirupathi, and the learned District judge by an order dated 21-1-1999 dismissed the same holding that the petitioner has not given sufficient reasons for his absence on the day when the matter was called in the court of the Magistrate. Hence, this petition.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that both the courts below erred in not accepting the contentions of the petitioner and that it was purely on account of the accident he met with on 23-6-1998 at Hyderabad, the petitioner could not attend the court on 30-6-1998 nor did he have sufficient time to inform his counsel and similarly his counsel was also absent at the relevant point of time as he had been to hyderabad on professional work.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent opposed the petition saying that when once the petitioner has exercised his option and filed a revision before the District Judge assailing the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, it is not open for him to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Code of criminal Procedure in view of the prohibition contemplated under Section 397 (3) of the code.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-State.

( 7 ) NOW, it is relevant here to extract section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure, which reads as follows: "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. "

( 8 ) IF the provision is accepted as it is, it is clear that a second revision at the instance of the same person is not maintainable and when once the Code prohibits the second revision, the same person cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the Code.

( 9 ) THIS issue came up for debate before the Supreme Court as well as this court and the same is interpreted by the courts in the following manner.

( 10 ) IN Dharmapaul and others v. Smt. Ramsree and others, the Supreme Court has taken the view that -"the question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High court could have utilized the power under Section 482 of the Code and entertained the second rev