JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. arises out of an order dated 20.3.1991 of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he directed Wali Mohd. to keep a revolver (0. -2 bore) bearing No. 1277635 ready in Court on 23.3.1991 & further directed the investigating officer, police station Ashok Nagar in F.I.R. No. 33/91 to present himself in Court in order to proceed further regarding the revolver on 23.3.1991.Factual matrix 2. On the basis of a statement of Bhanwar Khan (petitioner) recorded on 27.1.1991 by Hari Ram (Sub Inspector, P. S. Ashok Nagar) an FT.R No. 33/91 was chalked out for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, and a criminal case was registered at P. S. Ashok Nagar. In the statement, the petitioner stated that Ayub Ali fired 4-5 shots towards him and out of which, one bullet entered into his right chest, and that, Wali Mohd. also tried to open fire by 12 bore D.B.B.L. gun but it was snatched in the scuffle and, therefore, he (Wali Mohd.) could not fire. Wali hohd. Nizam Khan & Rafeeq have been bailed out under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City whereas Ayub Alls application for bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is said to be pending before the Sessions Court. 3. An application on behalf of Wali Mohd. was filed on I9.3.I99I before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur stating therein that, Ayub Ali (accused), has been a licence holder of his revolver 0.32 bore of No. 1277635 and he wanted to produce it before the Investigating Officer but the police has a grudge against him and if the revolver is allowed to be handed over to the police, the police would fire from it so as to manipulate recovery of empty cartridges from the scene of incident and then by planting evidence would get positive report from the ballistic expert about the firing of the revolver. And it has been prayed that he (Wali Mohd.) has brought the said revolver at the instance of Ayub Ali so as to deliver it in Court. 4. It has not been denied by Wali Mohd. that the said resolver is not connected with F.I.R. No. 33/91 chalked out on the Parcha Bayan of the present petitioner. Upon the aforesaid application of Wali Mohd. 4. It has not been denied by Wali Mohd. that the said resolver is not connected with F.I.R. No. 33/91 chalked out on the Parcha Bayan of the present petitioner. Upon the aforesaid application of Wali Mohd. the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order against which a criminal revision petition was also filed before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur and the said criminal revision petition came to be dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur on 27-3-1991. Hence the present misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. Shri S. P. Tyagi, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Wali Mohd.s application is purported to have been filed under Section 91, Cr P C. and under Section 91, Cr.P.C. only the Court and the Investigating Officer have been empowered to issue a notice or to pass a written order directing any person in whose possession or power any document or other thing which is necessary or desireable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry or trial or other proceedings requiring him to attend and produce it at the time and place stated in the summons or order. 6. Shri Tyagi therefore contended that there is no provision for entertaining any application filed by Wali Mohd. purported to have been filed under Section 91, Cr. P. C. inasmuch as the subordinate Magistrate before passing the impugned order nowhere observed that the production of the said revolver was desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry or trial or other proceeding; and that in order to determine the desirability, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have gone into relevant documents but, in the impugned order there is no such satisfaction about the desirability even as is required by Section 91, Cr. P. C. and that being so, also, it smacks of abuse of process of law which warrants interference by this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. so as to set aside the impugned order which according to Shri Tyagi, is ab initio void. 7. Contrarily, Shri S. R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Wali Mohd, & Ayub Ali, laised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the present misc. petition because, according to him. if it is entertained then it will amount to circumvent the provisions of Section 397 (3), Cr. 7. Contrarily, Shri S. R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Wali Mohd, & Ayub Ali, laised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the present misc. petition because, according to him. if it is entertained then it will amount to circumvent the provisions of Section 397 (3), Cr. P. C. and to fortify his contention, Shri Bajwa placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Mani Ram v. Mahaveer Prased & Anr. (1991 Cr. L. R Raj. 145 ). This Court in Maniram v. Mahaveer Prasad (supra) followed the decision of the Apex Court in Ranjan Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1990 S. C. C. (cri.) 537 ). 8. Undisputedly, the impugned order can be held to have been passed under Section 91, Cr. P. C. because this section empowers any Court or any person incharge of police station to issue summon or a written order to any person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be requiring him to attend & produce it at the time and place stated in the summon or order. Before passing such an order, the Magistrate should satisfy himself that the production of anything is necessary or desireable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously, the subordinate Magistrate, nowhere observed that the production of the revolver in question was desired for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry or trial and for which, some materials were required to be considered but the subordinate Magistrate failed to consider as to in what manner be satisfied himself that the production of the revolver in question was necessary O' desireable and in view of such a state of thing and situation in the case at hand, the impugned order of the subordinate Magistrate can be said to be bad in law but. having been benefitted by the enlightments dervjsed from the decision in Ranjan Kumar v. State of Karnataka (supra) an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in similar circumstances though labelled as petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. but obviously second revision petition having been unsuccessful in first revision petition before the Sessions Judge, is not maintainable by virtue of a bar under section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. 9. P. C. in similar circumstances though labelled as petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. but obviously second revision petition having been unsuccessful in first revision petition before the Sessions Judge, is not maintainable by virtue of a bar under section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. 9. Confronted with the above situation, Shri Tyagi, cited some decisions and contended that the scope of inherent powers of this Court is very wide and it cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense in view of the law laid down in the following cases : (1) Malam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976 RLW 532) (2) Bhanwarlal v. Madanlal & others (1977 Cr. L. P Raj. P. 315) (3) Nathilal v. State of Rajasthan (1981 Cr. L. R. Raj. P. 212) (4) M. Mruthyunjaya v. Premjit Singh (1990 (1) Crimes P. 537) (5) Charanjit Singh v. Gurusharan (1990 Cr. L. J. 1264). 10. I have gone through these citations and undisputedly it has been observed therein that the High Court has inherent power to prevent abuse of process and even in cases of inter-locutory orders, the scope of powers under Section 397, 399 & 482, Cr. P. C. is distinct. I find that the decisions cited and referred to by Shri Tyagi, settled the principles of law on the question of exercise of the powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The decisions cited supra are not direct on the subject matter at hand and they had different sets of circumstances. Therefore, I need not proceed to discuss and detail out the principle of law enunciated therein which govern the guiding principle for the exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 11. Inherent powers are vested in the Court to stop in wherever there is abuse of the process of the Court or there is a need to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order under Code of Criminal Procedure. And, while doing so, the Court cannot do what the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits it from doing nor can it make an order which is no contravention of or in direct conflict with any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. And, while doing so, the Court cannot do what the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits it from doing nor can it make an order which is no contravention of or in direct conflict with any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In all the decisions cited by Shri Tyagi, it has been laid down that inherent powers should be exercised in exceptional cases to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Having considered the contention of Shri Tyagi, I find that implication of the decisions in Maniram v. State of Rajasthan & Rajan Kumar v. State of Karantaka (supra) could not have been considered in the decisions cited and referred to by Shri Tyagi, obviously being of latter years as they were decided prior to the decisions in Maniram & Rajan Kumars cases (supra). In these circumstances, I have no option but to follow the decisions of this Court as well as that of the Apex Court in the cases referred to above, Maniram v. State of Rajasthan & Rajan Kumar v. State of Karnataka , supra, respectively, on the question of maintainability of this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. holding it to be second revision which is barred by Section 397(3), Cr. P.C. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I cannot abstain myself from saying that the accused is not entitled to apply under Section 91, Cr.P.C. for summoning the documents or producing the thing which he wants to do so; that, summoning of document or other thing is purely a matter concerned with the discretion of the trial Court; that, it is necessary for the Magistrate to exercise his discretion properly & judiciously and in other words, he must satisfy himself whether the document or the thing which the accused wants to summon or produce has a bearing upon or is irrelevant to the case and that, the summoning of such a document or the thing is desirable in the interests of justice, and for the purposes of such enquiry, trial or other proceedings. It is thus clear that satisfaction, following a consideration enjoined in Section 91, Criminal Procedure Code, must be apparent from the body of the order which must be talking one and an enquiry that reaches the point of hypothesis and assumptions is not an enquiry in conformance to the requirements of the statute and in other words, an implied satisfaction is not sustainable on ultimate analysis. And, a failure on the part of the Court to ascertain the grounds of his satisfaction or even a consideration as to why he thought it necessary or desirable for the purposes of the trial, inquiry or other proceeding, that the document or the other thing in question should be called for, would result in a non-conformance to the provisions of S. 91, Cr.P.C. and that error can be rectified in revision petition and not in a petition though labelled under Section 482, Cr.P.C. but in fact second revision which is barred by virtue of Section 397 (3), Cr.P C. And, as is settled law, while exercising inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the Court cannot do what the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits. Since in the case at hand, revision petition has been dismissed by the Court of Sessions, a second revision petition though styled as a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. would not lie to the High Court. 14. Consequently, in view of the statutory bar of second revision petition laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 397 (3). Cr.P.C. the present petition at hand under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the same is dismissed, sustaining the preliminary objection raised by Shri S.S. Bajwa.Petition Dismissed. *******