JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur dated 13-11-1991, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offence under section 380 IPC and also challenged the order of learned Special Judge, Sati Court and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2 has been affirmed. 2. The facts given rise to this case are that in Feb., 1980, the theft has been committed in the room at ground floor in Jemini Bhawan which was in possession of the complainant Ramniwas and when the theft was committed, the complainant was out of station and when he came back, he found that all the articles lying in that room at ground floor were missing. The matter was reported to the court where the civil suit was pending between the complainant and accused petitioners. The court has appointed the Commissioner and even Commissioner has reported that all the articles in the room at ground floor which was in possession of the complainant are missing. At the same time, an FIR has also been lodged in City Kotwali, Jaipur and Police has given the Final Report. The complainants were tenants in the building No. 2175 situated at Khajanewalon Ka Rasta, known as Jemini Bhawan. Thereafter the building was purchased by the accused-petitioners from Radha Ballabh and sons and since then the petitioners were trying to throw the tenants including the complainant Ramniwas out of building. When the complainant was out of station, this theft has been committed. When the F.R. has been given by the police, the complainant Ramniwas has filed the complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City and the statement of complainant Ramniwas was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. Similarly, the statements of Rajmal Jain and Rambabu were also recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. who support the case of the complainant and they categorically named Gyan Prakash and Ramesh. On the basis of the statements of Ramniwas complainant and other two witnesses, the Magistrate has taken the cognizance and later on framed the charges vide order dated 13-11-1991. On the basis of the statements of Ramniwas complainant and other two witnesses, the Magistrate has taken the cognizance and later on framed the charges vide order dated 13-11-1991. Being dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate, the petitioners preferred the revision in the Court of Sessions Judge and the revisional Court has also upheld the order of learned Judicial Magistrate except slight modification in the order that no case is made out against Gajendra who live in different place and has nothing to do with the ownership of the building Jemini Bhawan. 3. Being dissatisfied with the orders of courts below, the petitioners have filed this misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. During arguments, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.is not maintainable against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed in a revision filed in his court. He placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in case of Dharampal & others v. Smt. Ramshri & others, AIR 1993 SC 1361 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision of their Lordships on the issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan & others, (1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 103 . wherein it has been held that in hard cases, in the interest of justice the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the order of lower court passed in revisional jurisdiction. On merits, counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to stern relations between the complainant and the accused persons, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed his reliance on the orders of courts below. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the written submissions given by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Whether petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against an order passed in revision under section 397 Cr.P.C. ? 7. When the revision petition of the petitioners has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 16-4-1992, whether the misc. Whether petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against an order passed in revision under section 397 Cr.P.C. ? 7. When the revision petition of the petitioners has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 16-4-1992, whether the misc. petition of the petitioners under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained, while the second revision is barred by the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. This issue has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Manchancla v. State of Ktenataka, Cr.L.R. 1990(SC) 602 . Their Lordships had considered the scope of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and observed as under:- " The revisional court dismissed the petition of the State. A second revision did not lie at the instance of the State to the High Court in view of the provisions of Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. Obviously, to avoid this bar, the application moved by the State before the High Court was stated to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking for exercise of inherent powers. In exercise of that power the High Court has reversed the order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The question for consideration is as to whether the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. should have been taken note of to reject the revision at the instance of the State Government or action taken by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power has to be sustained. It is not disputed by counsel appearing for the State that the move before the High Court was really on application for revision of the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly what is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome. If that was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of Section 397(3) of the Code could be labelled as one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are satisfied that this is a case where the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision." 8. This issue has also been considered by their Lordships in their latest judgment in case of Dharampal & others v. Smt. Ramshri & others, AIR 1993 SC 1361 . This issue has also been considered by their Lordships in their latest judgment in case of Dharampal & others v. Smt. Ramshri & others, AIR 1993 SC 1361 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under:- " The question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High Court could have utilised the powers under Section 482 of the Code and entertained a second revision application at the instance of the first respondent. Admittedly the first respondent had preferred a Criminal Application being Cr.R. No. 180 of 1978 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate on 17-10-1978 withdrawing the attachment. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on 14-5-1979. Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of first respondent. On this short ground itself the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside." 9. The controversy regarding whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained against the order passed in revision by the Revisional Court under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. has also been considered by Full Bench of this Court in the case Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan & others, 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 103 . and the Full Bench of this Court in that case has also considered the case of Rajan Kumar Manchanda (supra), and has taken the view that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained against the revisional order passed under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The relevant Para 6 of the judgment reads as under:- " 6. We, therefore, answer the above question as under : The provisions of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not limit or affect the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of that Code. The said inherent power can be exercised for wither of three purposes specifically mentioned in Section 482, but in exercising the aforesaid power the Court should exercise self restraint and the said power should be exercised very sparingly for the purposes mentioned in that Section. The said inherent power can be exercised for wither of three purposes specifically mentioned in Section 482, but in exercising the aforesaid power the Court should exercise self restraint and the said power should be exercised very sparingly for the purposes mentioned in that Section. It can also exercise such power as and when in a given case the conscience of the court is shaken, but such cases will be far and few and the power should be exercised only sparingly." 10. Considering the judgment of their Lordships referred above and the judgments of this Court in the case of Kana Rum (supra), the misc. petition u /s. 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained against the order of Special Judge, Sati Court and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the revision petition of the petitioner has been rejected and second revision is barred by statutes. On the facts of this case, it cannot be said that if the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. will not be entertained then there would be gross injustice to the petitioners or the conscious of the Court will shaken. Therefore, on this count alone, the petition can be dismissed. 11. But even then I would like to decide the issue on merits also. On merits, the only question remains whether in any case, the court below was justified in framing the charges against the petitioners. The perusal of the record reveals that the complainant Ramniwas along with his family resides in House No. 2175 at Khajanewalon Ka Rasta as tenants of the accused petitioners. The complainant was tenant in this building even prior to purchase of this house No. 2175 by the accused petitioners in 1974. From 1974 onwards, the petitioners are trying to see that complainant should vacate their building, even the complainant has filed a civil suit and obtained stay order against the petitioners. In Feb., 1980, the theft was committed in a room which was in occupation of the complainant Ramniwas. The matter was reported to the civil court, as well as, to the police. The civil court has appointed Commissioner to inspect the room in which the theft has been committed. The Commissioner appointed by the court found that all the articles of the complainant were missing from the room. The matter was reported to the civil court, as well as, to the police. The civil court has appointed Commissioner to inspect the room in which the theft has been committed. The Commissioner appointed by the court found that all the articles of the complainant were missing from the room. The FIR in Police Station Kotwali has also been lodged but police gave the final report in this case. Thereafter, the complaint has been filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur. The statement of complainant as well as his witnesses were recorded and on that basis the cognizance has been taken. Thereafter, charges have also been framed. On the basis of these facts, it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of facts on record at the stage of framing of charges. The burden is not on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt at the stage of framing of charges but only a prima facie case has to be proved. 12. This Court has also considered the aspect when charge should be framed, in case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar & Anr., 1979 (2) SCR 229 at page 234-35 . and observed as under:- "(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. By and large, however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 13. Considering the facts as stated above and the detailed order of the revisional court dated 16-4-1992, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned orders of courts below. Taking into account the facts that this is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order, in revision under section 397 Cr.P.C., passed by the revisional court and second revision is barred. Therefore, In the light of the judgment of their Lordships in case of Dharampal (supra), there is no justification to entertain such petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., even on merits also, considering the facts discussed in detail by the revisional court, I do not find any. justification to interfere in the orders of courts below. 14. Hence this misc. petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******