K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this petition the prayer is to direct that G. R. Case No. 862/92 pending before the S. D. J. M. Kendrapara and I. C. C. Case No. 240/92 pending before the J. M. F. C. Kendrapara is tried together by the J. M. F. C. Kendrapara where I. C. C. Case No. 240/ 92 is pending. ORISSA HIGH COURT. ( 2 ) FOR this the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that he had filed the application (Annexure 1) on 22. 4. 1994 before the S. D. J. M. for transfer of this case to J. M. F. C. Kendrapara. He also filed an application (Annexure 2) in I. C. C. Case No. 240/92 to reserve the decision till the end of the trial of G. R. Case No. 862/92. Since it was not done, being aggrieved by the order dated 12. 7. 1994, passed by the J. M. F. C. Kendrapara in I. C. C. Case No. 240 of 1992, revision petition (Annexure 3) was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara who after hearing the parties has dismissed the same. Hence this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Muralidhar Saral and others v. The State of Orissa and others and also Sinayak Mishra and another v. State and another. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the opposite party raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. after dismissal of the revision petition of the petitioners (Annexure 3) by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara (Annexure 4 ). He placed reliance on Keshab Chandra Pradhan v. Kishore Chandra Misra and also Jagir Singh v. Manbir Singh and another. ( 5 ) THIS fact is not denied by the parties that the incident took place on 1. 1. 1992 and the complaint case I. C. C. 240/92 was filed on 3. 9. 1992. There evidence of the parties is over and the case is only fixed for decision. At this stage on 22. 6. 1994, the application Annexure I was filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate for staying the proceeding because of the pendency of the counter case. 9. 1992. There evidence of the parties is over and the case is only fixed for decision. At this stage on 22. 6. 1994, the application Annexure I was filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate for staying the proceeding because of the pendency of the counter case. But since the Magistrate did not agree the revision petition (Annexure 3) was filed which was decided by Annexure 4. In Annexure 4, the lower revisional court has held: Unless both the case are pending before the trial court and it is brought to the notice of the trying Magistrate that another case which is counter to the case at hand is pending in another court and steps are being taken in that regard for transfer of both the cases to one court, it cannot beheld that simply on the bald allegation of the pendency of a counter case, Magistrate is to stay the proceeding ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner attacks that finding on the ground that the revisional court ought to have called for the record and verified the facts. Without verifying the same such findings could not be accepted. But the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that in that case they had not been served with notice and they have no knowledge of its pendency. The further submission is that had the petitioner been sincere to get the same tried together with I. C. C case, he should have taken steps much earlier not at the stage when the case is going to be decided. It is only perhaps, apprehending that the decision may go against them this trick has been played by the petitioners which according to them is a mischievous trick and will delay the decision for time to come. ( 7 ) IN 69 (1990 C. L. T. 23) (supra), it has been held that: A second revision by the self-same party who did not succeed before the learned Sessions Judge in the first revision is not maintainable. Substantially a revision petition is not maintainable in the garb of a petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of section 397 Cr. Substantially a revision petition is not maintainable in the garb of a petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of section 397 Cr. P. C. which reads as under: 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 themtt. Specifically born the second revision petition by the same party. In A. I. R. 1979 Cr1. L. J. 318 (supra) it has been held: The object of S. 397 (3) is to prevent a multiple exercise of revisional powers and to secure early finality to orders. Any person aggrieved by in order of an inferior Criminal Court is given the option to approach either the Sessions Judge or the High Court and once he exercises the option he is precluded from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of other authority. The language of S. 397 (3) is clear and peremptory and it does not admit of any other interpretation. When the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, the High Courtts jurisdiction was invoked to avoid the order of the Magistrate and not that of the Sessions Judge. The bar of 5. 3971 (3) was, therefore, effectively attracted and the bar could not be circumvented by the subtorfuge of treating the revision application as directed against the Sessions Judges order. The revision application before the High Court cannot be treated as an application directed against the order of the Sessions Judge instead of as one directed against the order of the Magistrate. It is not permissible to do so. What may not be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. That would be an evasion of the statute. It is a well-known principle of law that the provisions of an Act of Parliament shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance. T So also in Dharampal and others v. Smt. R. Mashri and others, it has been held: There is no doubt that the learned Magistrate had cinautted in passing the subsequent orders of attachment when the first attachment was never finally vacated and had revised the moment the revision application filed against it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. T So also in Dharampal and others v. Smt. R. Mashri and others, it has been held: There is no doubt that the learned Magistrate had cinautted in passing the subsequent orders of attachment when the first attachment was never finally vacated and had revised the moment the revision application filed against it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that none of the parties including the Sessions Judge realised this error on the part of the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge had also committed a patent mistake in entertaining revision application against the fresh orders of attachment and granting interim stays when he had dismissed revision application against the order of attachment earlier. Let that be as it is. The question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High Court could have utilised the powers under 5. 482 of the Code and entertained a second revision-application at the instance of the 1st respondent had preferred a Criminal Application being Cr. R. No. 180/78 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate on 17 October, 1978 withdrawing the attachment. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on 14tmay, 1979. Section 397 (3) filed a second revision application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under 5. 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly harved by the Code. . . ( 9 ) IN view of this I dismiss the petition on the preliminary objection. Petition dismissed.