Order.- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21st July, 1977 passed by the Sessions Judge. Dharwar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 49 of 1976 instituted at the instance of the present petitioner as against the order of discharge passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class. Navalgund,in C.C. No. 844 of 1973 discharging respondents 1 to 3 of the offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, issued process and then proceeded to record the evidence and at a proper stage passed an order of discharge after discussing in detail the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the material contained in the leaflet which is put forth as containing defamatory matter. The Magistrate has recorded his finding that what is contained in the leaflet is nothing but an honest criticism of the administration of the society by the persons-in-charge of the administration and hence, there was nothing defamatory in character about it. 3. The complainant-petitioner being aggrieved by this order of discharge, filed the aforesaid revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has agreed with the finding of the learned Magistrate. 4. Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: "If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." 5. The power to interfere in the orders of dismissal and discharge of the nature in question is vested in the Sessions Court and the High Court as per section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It lays down "on examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. Provided. . . . . . .." 6. Provided. . . . . . .." 6. Galling for records to exercise powers of revision is made either by the Sessions Judge or the High Court under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and on receipt of the records the power exercisable by either of them under section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code, comes into play. Section 397(3) excerpted above makes it abundantly clear that if the records of an inferior Court are called for on an application made by any person and that person fails in getting an order in his favour, he loses his right to move the superior authority once again for the same relief and the superior authority in this case the High Court, is prohibited from entertaining such a revision petition. 7. In view of the aforementioned provision in law, this revision petition is not maintainable as it is clearly hit by section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Sri B.V. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the revision petition may be disposed of as if a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even when that request is granted, the matters are made worse for the position in law is that this Court cannot in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, go into re-appreciation of the evidence which has already been appreciated by the two Courts below. Plain reading of the leaflet which is available in the records of the lower Court makes it abundantly clear that it is directed against all the persons concerned with the administration of the said society and it is urged that the administration was not. being conducted in a proper manner and that the administration should be deprived of its powers in a particular way and if the concerned authorities did not take action, the complainant would offer Satyagraha before the Office of the Assistant Registrar and all were invited to join. This material thus goes in support of the conclusion of the two Courts below that it is honest criticism of the administration of the society by the person concerned in the administration. 9. Hence, I see no good reasons in this petition and dismiss the same.