Honble JAIN, J.–The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. read with O. 47, R. 1 and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking review of the order dated February 6, 1997 passed by this Court in D.B. Criminal Misc. Contempt Petition No. 2 of 1997. (2). We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (3). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that while arguing the contempt petition, he cited one decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (1), in support of his arguments but while passing the impugned order, that authority was not con- sidered by this court and this Court did not consider the alleged acts of omission and commission committed by other respondents. This Court only considered such acts with regard to respondents No. 6 and 7. The alleged activities of respondents No. 1 to 5 and 8 have escaped notice and consideration of this Court in the light of the observations made in Advocate General, Bihars case (supra). (4). In our opinion, this petition is devoid of force. On page 4 of the Judgment, we clearly observed that we are of definite opinion that these alleged acts of omission and commission allegedly being committed by the Addl. District Magistrate (City) Udaipur and the S.H.O. Police Station, Ambamata Scheme, Udaipur in complicity with other respondents do not amount to contempt of court. Thereafter, this Court proceeded to record the reasons for arriving at this conclusion. (5). The scope of review is very limited. In a review petition, the petitioner cannot re-argue or re-agitate the points already decided. In Advocate General, Bihars case (supra), certain principles have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and there is no dispute about those principles. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of this case, those principles do not apply to this case. (6). In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in this review petition and it is hereby dismissed.