1 S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.709/05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 709/2005 Lal Singh Ranawat Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 20/04/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Singaria, P.P. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dated 01.7.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) has been challenged. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. Perused the orders passed by both the courts below. It appears that a first information report was registered way back in the month of May, 2001, however, after investigation, police filed FR before the trial court i.e. Judicial 2 S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.709/05 Magistrate, Pindwara. The trial court on perusal of the papers filed before it by the police, more particularly, keeping in view the statements of Dharma Ram, Bhanwarlal, Motilal, Rawatdan, Narendra Singh and Girdhari Singh, prima faice came to the conclusion that from the statement of witnesses, offence punishable under Section 409 IPC is made out and accordingly took the cognizance of the offence and issued process. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of revision before the revisional court and by order impugned dated 01.07.2003, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. It appears that the petition came to be filed on 7.8.2003 and thereafter the matter has been adjourned at the request of the petitioner on several occasions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not been accorded. On careful perusal of the orders impugned, it appears that there are serious allegation of embezzlement of Rs. 26,070/- against the petitioner and from the statements of witnesses recorded by the police and even during trial and material available before the trial court, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that prima-facie offence is made out. On revision, the revisional court did not find any error in the order of trial 3 S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.709/05 court, on the contrary by a detailed and well reasoned order, the revisional court affirmed the order of the trial court. In my view, both the courts below have concurrently rightly found that prima-facie offence is made out. Even otherwise, the petitioner has availed one revision and in the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks second revision which is otherwise barred by Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that the case in hand is a rarest of rare case warranting interference by exercising the inherent jurisdiction. The criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merit and it is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp