Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This quashing application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14.9.1985 by which cognizance was taken and order dated 14.4.2003/ 16.4.2003 passed in Kotwali P.S. Case No.433/85, whereby and whereunder learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi refused to drop the proceeding of the case.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that a case was instituted against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Bihar Essential Commodities Act, 1977. After institution of the case the petitioner and his father file a anticipatory bail, which was granted and thereafter in the preliminary stage of investigation the petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 4303/85(R) but on 8.12.1988 the petitioner withdrew the application with liberty to raise the points before the trial court and at the time of trial the points were raised but learned court below considered those points and rejected the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order on several ground. Learned counsel pointed out that although the petitioner had earlier withdrawn the application but a subsequent petition with the same prayer will lie and in that connection he placed reliance upon AIR 1975 SC 1002. In this very case an earlier petition for quashing of the proceeding was refused by the trial court and thereafter by subsequent petition for quashing of the proceeding was filed and that quashing application was allowed and proceeding was dropped and the matter went up to the Supreme Court, where the Apex Court held that for preventing the abuse of the process of court, High Court is justified in entertaining the second application for quashing of the proceeding. Paragraph 2 of the said decision is quoted hereinbelow :

"2. The main question debated before us was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make the order dated 7th April, 1970 quashing the proceeding against Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 when on an earlier application made by the 1st respondent, the High Court had by its order dated 12th December,. 1968 refused to quash the proceeding. Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the State strenuously contended that the High Court was not competent to entertain the subsequent application of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and made the order dated 7th April, 1970 quashing the proceeding, because that was tantamount to a review of its earlier order by the High Court, which was outside the jurisdiction of the High Court to do. He relied on two decisions of the Punjab and Orissa High Courts in support of his contention, namely Hoshiar Singh v. the State, AIR 1958 Punjab 312 and Namdeo Sindhi v. the State, AIR 1958 Orissa 20. But we fail to see how these decisions can be of any help to him in his contention. They deal with a situation where an attempt was made to persuade the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to reopen an earlier order passed by it in appeal or in revision finally disposing of a criminal proceeding and it was held that High Court had no jurisdiction to revise its earlier order, because the power of revision could be exercised only against an order of a subordinate court. Mr. Chatterjee also relied on a decision of this Court in U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay (1955)2 SCR 94 = (AIR 1955 SC 633) where M.H. Bhagwati, J., speaking on behalf of himself and Imam, J., observed that once a judgment has been pronounced by the High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment and there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction over the same. These observations were sought to be explained by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the first respondent by saying that they should not be read as lying down any general proposition excluding the applicability of Sect