1 S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.28/2008 (Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : February 25, 2008 HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR, J. Mr.Niranjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.N.Moolchandani, P.P. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 22.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur (for short `the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 19.11.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Padampur (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the courts below. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the embezzled amount of Rs.1,29,391/- has been deposited before lodging of the FIR and, therefore, the proceeding deserves to be quashed. He has relied on a decision of this Court in Manohar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005(1) R.Cr.D. 215 (Raj.). On careful perusal of the orders passed by both the courts below, it appears that a huge amount of Rs.1,29,391/- has been 2 misappropriated and embezzled by the petitioner being public servant and he retained the same for good number of years and only during the departmental inquiry when it was revealed that he embezzled the amount of Rs. 1,29391/- and FIR was sought to be lodged in the intervening period, he deposited the same. This prima facie clearly goes to show the intention of the petitioner for criminal breach of trust by misappropriating huge public fund and as there is prima facie evidence of intentional embezzlement, in my view, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner turn on its on facts and is of no help. No case for quashing the proceeding is made out. More particularly when the petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge as envisaged under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Under the garb of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to avail a remedy of second revision. The second revision petition is barred by Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. Thus, it cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any court warranting interference in inherent jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/- 3 S.B.Cr.Misc. Stay Petition No.60/2008 In S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.28/2008 (Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : February 25, 2008 HON'BLE MR. H.R.PANWAR, J. Mr.Niranjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.N.Moolchandani, P.P. As the main petition has been dismissed, stay petition also stands dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-