JUDGMENT
K.C. Sharma, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. After the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioners moved an application under Section 204, Cr.P.C. thereby raising certain objections. The learned Trial Court after considering the objections and hearing both the parties concluded that all the objections raised by the petitioners are the factual matrix, which could be decided only after recording the evidence and accordingly dismissed the petitioners’ application vide order dated 16.8.2003. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioners preferred revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The learned revisional Court was of the view that making observations on the merits at this stage would adversely affect the case of either party. Otherwise also, in the opinion of the revisional Court, the application filed under Section 204, Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of the offence was not maintainable because the Trial Court was not competent to review or recall its order in view of the law propounded by the Apex Court in Neelniani Rawat v. Benet Colmen Company, .
2. In my view, once the matter has already been examined by the revisional Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise it again in second revision by resorting to the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. In my considered view, inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 cannot be utilised as a substitute for second revision. The object of Section 397(3) is clear. It is to prevent a multiple exercise of revisional powers and to secure early finality to orders. It is well settled that any person aggrieved by an order of an inferior Criminal Court is given the option to approach cither the Sessions Judge or the High Court and once he exercises the option he is precluded from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the other authority. In the case at hand the petitioners has already availed the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court and, therefore, as stated above the inherent powers of this Court cannot be invoked as a substitute for second revision. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Apex Court in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, . Otherwise also the order passed by the learned Courts below are just and proper. In my considered view the learned revisional Court was right in holding that Trial Court had no jurisdiction to review or recall its order and has thus rightly dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. The petitioners will have ample opportunity to raise all such objections which have been taken in their application under Section 204, Cr.P.C, at the time of framing of charge/s and during trial of the case.
With the above observations, this petition stands dismissed.
