JUDGMENT 1. - Even in the fourth round nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant (Surajmal). 2. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 28.7.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases (Prevention of Atrocities. Act), Merta in criminal revision No. 16/94 whereby the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagore on 14.1.1994 in criminal case No. 57/94 was maintained. 3. By his order dated 14.1.1994 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagore, took cognizance of the offence under sections 323 & 325 of the IPC on the basis of the report submitted by the Police under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. On that same day, he released the accused Jagdish Narain on bail on furnishing a surety of Rs. 3,000/- and personal bond of like amount. 4. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as below:- On 27.12.1993 Surajmal Meghwal submitted a report in writing at the Police Station, Merta alleging therein that on 27.12.1993 a meeting was being held in the premises of Municipal Board, Merta. In the meeting Shri Nathmal Birla (a member) stood for the purppse of speaking, he was abused and beaten. When Surajmal tried to intervene he was abused and beaten by the accused Jagdish Narain. On the basis of the report submitted by Surajmal the Police registered a case under section 323 of the IPC r /w Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation a report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted in respect of the offence u /s. 325 of the IPC. 5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences mentioned above vide order dated 14.1.1994. A revision petition was filed by the accused Jagdish Narain and the same was decided by the learned Special Judge SC /ST Cases, Merta on 28.7.1995. It was urged before the learned Special Judge that the accused was entitled to protection of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the act complained of was committed by him while performing duty of public servant i.e. as a member of Municipal Board. The submission made on behalf of the accused was not accepted by the learned Special Judge and consequently, the revision petition filed by the accused was dismissed. 6. The submission made on behalf of the accused was not accepted by the learned Special Judge and consequently, the revision petition filed by the accused was dismissed. 6. After carefully considering all the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagore and the order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Merta. It is well established that second revision under the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable and the powers u / s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when in fact the petition is in the nature of second revision petition. Suffice it to say that in this case no case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is made out. The provisions of Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be circumvented by petitions purporting to be under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. If any authority is needed in support of above proposition of law I may respectfully refer to the judgment given in Hukmichand v. State of Raj., WLC (Raj.) 1996 (3). For reasons mentioned above this petition has no force. It deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.Petition dismissed. *******