JUDGMENT Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.: This revisional application has been preferred under s. 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing Case No. C-136 of 1995 and also setting aside the impugned Orders dated 1.4.95 to 4.4.96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Court, Sealdah. 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.4 is a share broker, petitioner No. 1 and 3 are aged parents of petitioner No, 4, petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 4 and petitioner No. 5 is the father-in-law of petitioner No. 4 and also a permanent resident of Bombay who had no occasion to come to Calcutta ever. The petitioner No.4 was acquainted with the O.P. No. 1 since 1992 when the latter admitted his son in the school of O.P. No.1. Being approached by O.P. No.1 in September, 1993 the petitioner No. 4 sold some shares and debentures of different companies in between September, 1993 and April, 1994 and also received A/c. Payee cheques. The petitioner No. 1 & 3 purchased ownership flats in February, 1994 at Bombay and petitioner No. 1 to 4 shifted there in May, 1994. All the shares and debentures purchased by O.P. No. 1 from petitioner No.4 were transferred and registered in the name of O.P. No.1. 3. On 28.3.95 the O.P. No. 1 filed a petition of complaint before the A.C.J.M., Sealdah against the present petitioner and three others for offences under s. 406, 413, 417, 420 423 read with s. 34 IPC. The basis of allegation is that shares worth of Rs. 1,55,240/- and Rs. 36,000/- of Brooke Bond (India) Ltd. were stolen and that the same were sold by petitioner No.4 to O.P, No. 1 knowing the same to be stolen and thus cheated and committed fraud. The O.P. No.1 is alleged to have asked petitioner No.4 to return money which is stated to have been refused. 4. After cognizance was taken by the A.C.J.M., Sealdah, the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah. The learned Judicial Magistrate on examination of the complainant, namely, O.P. No. 1 alone issued process on 1.4.95 under different sections including s. 413 IPC. There was no direction by the Magistrate to produce remaining witnesses on the complainant. Warrant of arrest was accordingly issued against all the petitioners and were directed to be executed at different places. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate on examination of the complainant, namely, O.P. No. 1 alone issued process on 1.4.95 under different sections including s. 413 IPC. There was no direction by the Magistrate to produce remaining witnesses on the complainant. Warrant of arrest was accordingly issued against all the petitioners and were directed to be executed at different places. 5. On 22.6.95 the petitioners entered appearance through learned Advocate and tiled a petition under s. 205 Cr.P.C. In the meantime a revisional application was filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 1.4.95 and 6.5.95 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah. The revisional application was disposed of with the direction for the petitioners to surrender in the Trial Court within six weeks from the date and execution of warrant of arrest was stayed for eight weeks. Direction was also granted to consider the question of bail in case the petitioners made a prayer to that effect. By an order. dated 29.9.95 an application under s. 205 Cr.P.C. was disposed of in terms of the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid revisional application. The petitioners being residents of Bombay were not aware of the contents of the order passed in the revisional application. Besides petitioner No. 1 being a cancer patient was unable to undertake the journey to Calcutta. The learned Judicial Magistrate declared the petitioners as proclaimed absconders and issued warrant of arrest simultaneously. He also directed publication of the proclamation in Newspaper under s. 82(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. without complying with the mandatory provisions. in the meantime, another application praying for modification of the earlier order of the revisional application was preferred but the same was not pressed. Following publication of the Newspaper the learned Judicial Magistrate also took cognizance of an offence under s.174 IPC against the accused persons. By the self-same order he suo motu directed the complainant to file the list of properties for attachment under s. 83 Cr.P.C. He directed reissue of warrant directing a number of persons to execute the same at different localities. 6. an 12.4.96 the petitioner filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate to the fact that O.P. No.1 had already sold 350 (three hundred fifty) shares of Brooke Bond India Limited and Bata India Limited which are the subject-matter of the instant petition after the same were duly registered in his name. 6. an 12.4.96 the petitioner filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate to the fact that O.P. No.1 had already sold 350 (three hundred fifty) shares of Brooke Bond India Limited and Bata India Limited which are the subject-matter of the instant petition after the same were duly registered in his name. Accordingly, prayer was made to stop the vexatious proceeding and the petitioners also expressed their willingness to refund the entire amount paid by O.P. No.1 on his return of original share certificates. The present petitioners also repurchased all the said shares from the market. It is their case that such purchase was made in good faith and thereafter those were sold to the O.P. No.1. 7. The revisional application is being contested by the O.P. No. 1 and the ground on which such contest is being made is that the second revisional application even if it is under s. 482 Cr.P .C. cannot be entertained as being not maintainable in view of the earlier revisional application being 920 of 1995 which was disposed of on 14.9.95 by this Court. It is his contention that a second revisional application is barred under s. 397(3) Cr.P.C. and inherent power under s. 482 Cr.P.C. cannot also be exercised in view of the said bar. 8. In order to substantiate his argument the learned Advocate has relied on two decisions reported in 1995 Cal. Cr. LR I and 1990 (2) SCC 437 . So far as the former decision is concerned the same does not appear to be applicable in the present case since in that case there was no question of filing of a second revisional application but only the power of the Police authorities to investigate in a cognizable offence has been discussed apart from some other issues which are not material for our purpose. In the later case the principles laid down is no doubt that inherent power cannot be exercised so as to review the earlier decision or to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. But the facts of the case are entirely different from the present one. In the later case the principles laid down is no doubt that inherent power cannot be exercised so as to review the earlier decision or to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. But the facts of the case are entirely different from the present one. In that case, after receiving the transfer of a case alleging offences under s. 452 and 323 IPC., the Judicial Magistrate concerned having the power of a Second Class Magistrate examine witnesses and issued process which were challenged under s. 482 Cr.P.C. mainly, on the ground that the First Class Magistrate have transferred the case without taking cognizance and as such subsequent proceeding was illegal. The High Court on the basis of its definite finding arrived at after perusal of the record produced before the Magistrate and on a consideration of the report of the Magistrate dismissed the petition. Thereafter, an application was again made before the High Court under s. 482 Cr.P.C. only on the ground that there was irregularity in the transfer of the proceedings. The High Court accepted the case and quashed the proceeding which was challenged before the Supreme Court when it •was decided that in view of the bar under s. 362 Cr.P.C. the High Court was not right in entertaining the second application and quashing the proceeding. At the same time, it has been observed that' in cases when there are changes in the circumstances it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent power in the prevailing circumstances and to pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the second decision also as I shall show later on more clearly when dealing with the different orders far from helping the opposite party comes in the aid of the petitioners. 9. From the side of the petitioner reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 1992 Cr.L.J. 1327 where rejection of an earlier application for quashing a proceeding on the ground of absence prima facie case did not operate as a bar to file another application on the same ground as it did not amount to review or revision of the earlier order. In that case, earlier application for quashing under s. 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed summarily by the High Court. In that case, earlier application for quashing under s. 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed summarily by the High Court. A second revisional application was filed and was upheld since earlier application was dismissed summarily without even calling for the Lower Court record. Reliance have also been placed on a decision reported in 1975 Cr.L.J. 8112 where the Supreme Court upheld the power of the High Court to quash a proceeding to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice inspite of an application for quashing the proceeding on a former occasion was rejected by the High Court. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court reported in 1996 (1) CHN 253 when it was held that a point which was not considered or canvassed on any earlier occasion such point may be raised and accepted by the Court in another revisional application. 10. A xerox copy of the decision of the earlier revisional application dated 14.9.95 forms annexure in the revisional application. I have carefully perused the same. It is true that the impugned orders dated 1.4.95 as also 6.5.95 have been mentioned therein being the orders challenged by the petitioners but there was no further discussion and it was neither allowed nor rejected but the revisional application was disposed of by directing the petitioners to appear before the trial Court within a certain period and liberty was also given to dispose of the bail application if filed in accordance with law. 11. In the present revisional application, apart from these two orders, subsequent orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate issuing WPA and also publication in the Newspaper as also suo motu order of attachment have been challenged. Therefore, it is definitely a change of circumstance. Besides, the earlier revisional application did not dispose of or dealt with the propriety or legality of the two orders challenged therein. In view of the above, I am of opinion that s. 362 Cr.P.C. cannot operate as a bar for entertaining the present application to exercise inherent power due to change of circumstances in order to prevent of abuse of process of the Court and also for ends of justice. 12. In view of the above, I am of opinion that s. 362 Cr.P.C. cannot operate as a bar for entertaining the present application to exercise inherent power due to change of circumstances in order to prevent of abuse of process of the Court and also for ends of justice. 12. The certified copy of the order sheet of case No. 136 of 1995 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Court, Sealdah dated 1.4.95 reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate on examination of complainant alone and in the absence of any other witness present on the day directed issuing of warrant of arrest against all the accused persons being the present petitioners when the alleged circumstances were under s. 403, 413, 417, 420, 423 read with s. 34 IPC. The issuance of process in the manner as has been done by the learned Judicial Magistrate when one of the offences namely, s. 413 appears to be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions is not in accordance with law being in direct contravention of the provisions' of s. 202(2) proviso of the Cr.P.C. When the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie that one of the offences is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was incumbent for him to direct the complainant to produce all this witnesses and to examine them on oath.. He could take a decision regarding issuance of process only thereafter in view of the existence of an offence which is• exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The procedure followed by him is not only an approach which is absolutely mechanical but is also an utter violation of a provision of s. 202(2) Cr.P.C. The law on this point as so clear that no reference need be cited though the petitioners relied on a decision reported in 81 CWN 976. 13. Therefore, the issuance of process suffers from an illegality which is not at all curable. 14. Illegality does not rest here. It appears from the order dated 18.8.95 that till that day there was no E.R. of warrant of arrest when 29.9.95 was fixed for the same. On that day on receipt of the communication conveying the decision of this court in the earlier revisional application for stay of execution of the warrant of arrest, the learned Judicial Magistrate stayed such execution. On that day on receipt of the communication conveying the decision of this court in the earlier revisional application for stay of execution of the warrant of arrest, the learned Judicial Magistrate stayed such execution. Curiously enough by the self-same order he challenged also the application under s. 205 Cr.P.C. which was earlier preferred before him to be disposed of and the basis for such disposal of the petition is communication of the order of the revisional Court. But the said order no May speaks anything about an application under s. 205 Cr.P .C. presumably such •an application was filed at a subsequent point of time after the filing of the revisional application. However, the next day was fixed at 20.1.95 and on that day he directed simultaneous issue of warrant, proclamation and attachment. The reason" assigned by him is far from satisfactory. I need not repeat subsequent irregularity and illegality committed in the matter of publication of the proclamation in the Newspaper, subsequent direction to produce the list of properties for purpose of attachment. 15. In view of the violation of the mandatory provision of s. 202(2) Cr.P.C. all subsequent steps taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate are vitiated and cannot be allowed to stand. 16. In the result, the order dated 1.4.95 issuing process and all subsequent orders giving various directions on different authorities must also be set aside and accordingly all of them are set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law including the provisions of s. 200 and s.202 Cr.P.C. from the stage in which the case was immediately after the transfer of the same by the learned A.C.J.M., Sealdah to his Court. The revisional application accordingly stands allowed. Let the Lower Court be informed accordingly and immediately. Revisional application allowed. Direction given.