S.D. Jha, J.

1. The Question arising for consideration in this Misc. Cri. Case and other similar Misc. Cri. Cases Nos. 888/92, Mis. Rajdhani Distillers v. M. P. State and 2428/92, Gajendra Kumar Sharma v. M. P. State, at this stage is whether prohibition under Sections 397(3) and 399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'Code') as to entertaining second revision application by this Court at the instance of the person, who had made application to Sessions Judge, prevents this Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code even when requisite conditions for exercise of such power as stipulated in three Judge Bench in Madhu Limaye v. State of Bihar, 1978 Cr. LJ. 165 (SC) are fulfilled.

2. The question arises in view of recent decision of the Supreme Cout in Rajkumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (Suppl) SCC 192, inter alia holding that merely by saying that jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked, the statutory bar (under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code) could not have been overcome.

3. At the hearing Shri S. G. Bagadiya argued that the two Judge Bench decision of Suprem