JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - This is a petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. filed by the unsuccessful revisional Petitioner before the learned Add!. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. 2. The brief fact of the case is that one' Harekrishna Harijan, opp. party herein, as the first party filed an application u/s 145, Cr. P.C. before the learned Addl.TahasiIdar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Nawarangpur claiming that the scheduled land belongs to him, which is recorded in the name of his grandfather Late Samuel Sobha Christian. It was asserted that during October, 1989, the second party member (petitioner herein) Suryamani Gorada demolished his house which he had constructed to see and watch the ripen crop and he was also dispossessed from the disputed land. The learned Magistrate after going through the materials placed before him both oral and documentary, declared the possession. of the first party over the disputed land and directed delivery of possession to said firstparty Harekrushna Harijan. Aggrieved with the order, the second party, the present Petitioner, approached the 'learned Sessions Judge, which was heard and disposed of by the Add. Sessions Judge, Jeypore. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge,having found no merit in the revision dismissed the same on contest by order dated 22-11-1995, which is ought to be challenged in this Court by way of a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C 2. 1995(4) S.C. C. 41 3. Heard Sri S.K. Nayak-3, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri C.A. Rao, learned Counsel for the opposite party. 4. The first question that is raised for consideration, 'is, as to whether the present petition under secion 482, Cr. P.C. is maintainable at the instance of the unsuccessful revision Petitioner in view of the bar contemplated u/s 397(3), Cr. P.C. his revision having been dismissed by the learned Add. Sessions Judge. It is not disputed that the opposite party as the first party member, initiated a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. against the present Petitioner as the second party and the learned Executive Magistrate declared the possession in his favour and against the present Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present Petitioner moved in a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was heard by the learned Add!. Sessions Judge and the revision was dismissed. This present petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is for exercising the inherent power of this Court, which is in the garb of a second revision. Being aggrieved, the present Petitioner moved in a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was heard by the learned Add!. Sessions Judge and the revision was dismissed. This present petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is for exercising the inherent power of this Court, which is in the garb of a second revision. 5. It is the settled principle of law that in view of a bar u/s 397 (3), CLP.C., a second revision by the unsuccessful Petitioner after dismissal of the first one by the sessions Court is not maintainable and inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised because of the bar contemplated u/s 397(3), Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court in Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, has laid down that a:fter dismissal of a first revision by too Sessions Court, a revision application is not maintainable at the instance of the unsuccessful revision Petitioner and that inherent power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. cannot' be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. In Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa and Others it has been held that High Court should not act as a second revisional court. This Court in Keshab Chandm Pradhan v. Kishore Chandra Mishra 69(1990) Cuttack Law Times 23 has held that a second revision by the selfsame party, who did. not succeed before the learned Sessions Judge in the first revision is not maintainable. 6. Law is well-settled that a person is not debarred from invoking the power of the high Court u/s 482, Cr. P.C. against a revisional order, but the High Court cannot act as a second revisional court under the garb of exercising inherent power, where the unsuccessful Petitioner before the revisional court approaches the High Court u/s 482.Cr. P.C.. 7. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, the present petition at the instance of the unsuccessful Petitioner before the revisional court is not maintainable in law and as such is to be rejected on that count alone without going to the merit of the contentions raised on factual aspects. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Let the lower court records be transmitted to the concerned authority immediately. Petition rejected. Final Result : Dismissed