Honble YADAV, J.– Heard learned counsel for the parties on each Criminal Misc. Petition separately. (2). Perused the record of each case. (3). It is pertinent to mention that office was directed to list all these Criminal Misc. Petitions filed under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. by the same person or persons after dismissal of revision petitions by the learned Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges in exercise of their powers under Sec. 397(1) Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, all these petitions are listed for admission. (4). Since in all these Cr.Misc. Petitions, a common question of law is involved as to whether a person or persons in the garb of invoking the inherent powers as envisaged under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. can be permitted to file second revision before this Court which is expressly barred under sub-section (3) of Sec. 397, Cr.P.C. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these Criminal Misc. Petitions are being disposed of by a common order without delineating the facts of each case. (5). The aforesaid question came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1), where after taking into account decisions of the Apex Court, it is ruled by the Full Bench that provisions of Section 397, Cr.P.C. do not limit or affect the inherent power of this Court under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. The said inherent power can be exercised for either of three purposes specifically mentioned in Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. 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 Sections. (6). It is further ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kana Ram (supra) that inherent power as envisaged under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. can also be exer- cised as and when in a given case, the conscience of the court is shaken but such cases will be far and few. (7). Although Criminal Misc. (6). It is further ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kana Ram (supra) that inherent power as envisaged under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. can also be exer- cised as and when in a given case, the conscience of the court is shaken but such cases will be far and few. (7). Although Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Kana Ram (supra) with reference to the provisions of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 397, Cr.P.C. about bar of filing of revision against an interlocutory order but the ratio of Full Bench about the manner of exercise of inherent power of this Court as envisaged under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. has attained finality. The principle of manner of exercise of inherent power under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Kana Ram (supra) is equally applicable to the bar envisaged under sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 397, Cr.P.C. about filing of a second revision at the instance of the same person. (8). It is well to remember that while exercising inherent powers under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C., this Court must be conscience of the fact that the learned Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges in all these Criminal Misc. Petitions on hand had declined to exercise their revisory powers conferred on them under sub- sec- tion (1) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. (9). It is further to be noticed that under sub-section (1) of Sec. 399, Cr.P.C. in all these cases where the records have been called for by the learned Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges, they are entitled to exercise all or any of the powers, which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-sec.(1) of Sec. 401, Cr.P.C. It is also to be noticed that under sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 399, Cr.P.C. where any proceedings by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-sec.(1) of Sec. 397, Cr.P.C., the provisions of sub-sections(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Sec. 401, Cr.P.C. have also been made applicable to such proceedings and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall always be construed as references to the Sessions Judge. (10). (10). Thus, once a person has been given an option to choose a forum and he has chosen a forum to prefer a revision under Sec. 397(1), Cr.P.C. before a learned Sessions Judge which power is conterminous with the power of revision of this Court then he cannot be allowed to file a second revision in the garb of Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. to circumvent the mandatory provisions contemplated under sub-sec.(3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. It is true that even after dismissal of revisions by the learned Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges in these cases on hand, this Court could interfere only after being satisfied in rarest of rare cases to the effect that if the orders impugned are allowed to stand it would occasion abuse of process of the Court or it is necessary to secure the ends of justice. (11). Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law I have ransacked the record of each case separately and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard separately in each case. After examining the inherent power of this Court as ruled by the Full Bench in case of Kana Ram (supra), in my considered opinion, the facts of these Criminal Misc. Petitions do not fall within the ambit of Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. but in the garb of these Criminal Misc. Petitions, the petitioners are making desperate attempts to circumvent the mandatory provisions of sub-section(3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. according to which filing of second revision before this Court is expressly barred. Consequently, all these Criminal Misc. Petitions are dismissed summarily at admission stage. A copy of this order be placed on record of each file.