JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 12.6.02 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat, Distt. Pali in Criminal Revision No. 43/2000, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 6.9.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran has been confirmed. 2. Admittedly, the truck RJ22/G-0218 was released in favour of petitioner Heera Lal by the learned Court below vide order dated 31.5.99 on his furnishing a Supardginama in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with a surety in the like amount for producing the truck as and when required and on being required the petitioner has failed to produce the truck in question before the Court and the truck has been disposed of by selling it to one Mangi Lal S/o Durga Ram on 31.3.97. Apparently, they have committed breach of the conditions of the Supardginama, whereupon after considering his explanation the learned trial Court has found his explanation unsatisfactory. So, the entire amount of Supardginama has been forfeited and he has been directed to deposit the same. The petitioner has challenged the said order before the learned Court below by way of revision which was also dismissed vide impugned order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant/ non-petitioner No. 2 and have also perused the order of the learned Civil Judge JD-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Jaitaran dated 6.9.2000, as also the order dated 12.6.2002 confirming aforesaid order, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the said order. The order appears to be eminently legal, just and proper. There is neither any abuse of the process of the Court nor it is otherwise essential for this Court to interference in the aforesaid order for securing the ends of justice. 4. It is well-settled principle of law that the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and in the rarest of rare case and that too for the purpose mentioned in the said section. In the instant case, no such case is made out. 4. It is well-settled principle of law that the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and in the rarest of rare case and that too for the purpose mentioned in the said section. In the instant case, no such case is made out. As a matter of fact, this petition tantamounts to a second revision in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to circumvent the specific bar provided in Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. which is impermissible under the law. 5. Therefore, I do not find any valid and cogent reason to interference with the impugned order and this petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.Petition dismissed. *******