Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Second revision is barred under 397(3) CrPC.
From Para 16,
Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs Moti Ram and Ors. on 20 November, 1992
The bare reading of Sub-Section 3 would how that it does not curtail the remedy but only bars or abrogate the remedy. It curtails the remedy second time. The power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions, so far as revision is concerned, are concurrent. The revisionist has choice to File revision directly in the High Court or in the Sessions Court. Having availed the remedy by filing revision before the Sessions Judge he cannot be permitted to avail second chance, the bar of Sub Section (3) will come in his way. V.R. Krishna lyer, J. in the case of Raj Kapoor Vs. State (Delhi Administration) observed that “In our constitutional order, fragrant with social,justice broader consideration of final relief must govern the juridical process save where legislature interdict plainly forbids that, course”. (underlining is mine). In Raj Kapoor’s case though Supreme Court was not cat tea upon to deal with Sub-Section (3), it was only dealing with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, particularly where the petitioner instead of invoking the revisional power under Section 39 invoked the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, particularly where the petitioner instead of invoking the revisional power under Section 39 invoked the inherent power of the High Court. It was in this background the above observations were made which will show that the Court was not unmindful of the fact that whenever legislature interdict plainly or statute bar the availing of remedy in that case, the High Court cannot resort to its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to circumvent the prohibition laid down in the Code.