JUDGMENT

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. The present petition is preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order of the Ld. ASJ dated 19.09.2007 upholding the decision of the Ld. MM dated 12.05.2006 vide which the charge under section 406 IPC was ordered to be framed.

2. The brief facts necessitating the present petition are that the complainant on 30.10.1998 lodged a complaint at police station, Lahori Gate alleging that a file of the complainant containing Sales Tax Forms has been misappropriated by the petitioner. On enquiry a report was given by the ACP concerned that no case is made out. The complainant/respondent No. 2 filed a criminal writ before this court against the police officials which was disposed of with direction to the DCP, North, to look into the complaint and proceed in accordance with law. In pursuance of the direction of this court the ACP conducted an enquiry and submitted a report concluding that an offence under section 406/420 IPC is prima facie made out. On the basis of this report the DPC directed P.S. Lahori Gate to register an FIR whereupon FIR No. 492/1999 under section 406/420 IPC was registered against the petitioner. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under section 406 IPC and the trial court took cognizance under section 406 IPC vide its order dated 16.02.2002. The petitioner filed a criminal writ in this court for quashing of the FIR and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2003 wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the trial court as the charge- sheet had already been filed in the case. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner under section 406 IPC vide its order dated 12.05.2006. This order was challenged in the court of Ld. ASJ under section 397 Cr.P.C. wherein the order of the Ld. MM framing charge against the petitioner was upheld vide impugned order dated 19.09.2007.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant objected to the maintainability of the petition submitting that though the petition was preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with under Article 227 of the Constitution, but the petition, in fact, was a second revision against the order of MM framing charges under section 406 IPC. He submitted that the second revision being barred under section 397(3) Cr. P.C. was not maintainable in this Court.

4. There was, in fact, no dispute with regard to the proposition that there was statutory bar contained in section 397(3) Cr.P.C. for the second revision petition. The power of this Court and that of the Court of Sessions, so far as a revision is concerned, are concurrent. The intention of the Legislature under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. is definite and the scheme therein is unambiguous and clear. Sub section (3) does not permit the repetition in exercise of jurisdiction of revision under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. It curtails the chance availing second remedy and therefore, an unsuccessful revisionist in the court of Sessions cannot be entertained for the second time by the High Court. In fact, sub section (3) intends and aims to secure finality. The choice lies with the revisionist either to file revision directly in this Court or in the Sessions Court. Having availed the remedy by filing revision before the Sessions Court, one cannot be permitted to avail second chance to file revision in view of the bar of sub section (3) of section 397 Cr.P.C.

5. The issue regarding filing of petition before the High Court after having availed first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr.P.C. laid statutory bar of second revision petition, the courts have held that High Court did enjoy inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. as well to entertain petitions even in those cases. But, that power was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particu