JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J.:- Heard Mr. I. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Mr. K. Roy, learned Amicus Curiae engaged by this Court has also addressed the Court. This is a revisional petition filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short) against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2007 delivered in Criminal Revision No. 11(2) of 2006 by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kailashahar, North Tripura. By the said judgment and order, the order of acquittal dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kailashahar, North Tripura in GR No. 151 of 2005 has been interfered with and set aside with direction to the Judicial Magistrate for hear the parties afresh on the basis of the evidence already recorded. 2. On the face of the record it appears to this Court that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. as the said section provides an express bar as regards the second revision by either of the parties. 3. In a catena of decisions, the apex court has held that even the inherent powers cannot be exercised when it has been expressly barred. However, if the petition were filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this court could have a limited scrutiny to the extent that whether the impugned order had occasioned failure of justice or not, in view of the decision rendered by the apex court in Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241 where it has been held as under: Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person - accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. 4. The direction of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kailashahar, North Tripura is for fresh hearing as the trial court did not, according to the impugned judgment and order, properly weigh the evidence else there would have been the presumption of marriage. From a bare reading of the impugned judgment and order, it surfaces further that the evidence was not properly appreciated while passing the order of acquittal. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners has succinctly submitted that the petitioners, the acquitted accused persons, have been grossly prejudiced by the impugned judgment and order. In the legal parlance 'prejudice' may mean or import extensively a wide range of wrongs but so far the inherent powers are concerned, it is only confined to the element of failure of justice with its different shades. This revision petition has failed to project any element of failure of justice and as such the inherent powers as conferred by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. Bald allegations of 'prejudice' would not salvage the petitioners from the situation. Thus, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent power to obviate the bar put forth by the statute. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 6. Mr. Bald allegations of 'prejudice' would not salvage the petitioners from the situation. Thus, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent power to obviate the bar put forth by the statute. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 6. Mr. Roy, learned Amicus Curiae has correctly contended that there cannot be any question of prejudice as the petitioner shall get the full opportunity to place his submissions before the trial court. 7. Mr. Ghosh, learned P.P. has concurred with the submission of learned Amicus Curiae. Before parting, it is directed that the trial court should allow the submissions to be made within the evidence as already recorded and no parties including the prosecution would be allowed to place new evidence. The accused persons shall appear before the trial court on 05.03.2014 when the trial court shall fix a date for fresh hearing. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Mr. K. Roy, learned Amicus Curiae be paid a fee of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) for assisting the court in this matter. The Law Department, Government of Tripura shall reimburse the said fee from their legal aid fund within six weeks from the date of submission of the copy of this order along with the bill as would be raised by Mr. Roy, learned Amicus Curiae. A copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr. Roy for his use.