ORDER : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No.22/2009 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.9.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Case No.144/2007, whereby the trial court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section 507 IPC and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the trial court alleging that he purchased some medicines from a Pharmacy in the year 2004 and the shopkeeper had gifted him a calender of the year 2004. The said calender was published by the manufacturer of the medicines, which is owned by the respondent No.2. In the said calender, in the holiday column of 15th August, 2004, the Indian National Flag is displayed with 'Saffron' down. It is also alleged that when a notice was issued to the respondent No.2 through an Advocate, the respondent No.3 threatened his Advocate on telephone from Delhi and said that if they are going to file a case against the respondent No.2, he would also file a case against them at Delhi. It is also alleged that the notice sent by the petitioner on 1.4.2005 to the respondent No.2 was returned with a remark 'refused'. 4. In support of the complaint, the petitioner has got recorded his statement. The trial court sent the matter for investigation to the police and the police during investigation have recorded the statements of the petitioner, his Advocate, respondent No.2, the Director of the Unipex Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent No.3. After investigation, the police have submitted a report while observing that the Indian National Flag printed on the calender with 'Saffron' down was a printing mistake and no insult of the Indian National Flag was committed by the accused respondents. 5. After investigation, the police have submitted a report while observing that the Indian National Flag printed on the calender with 'Saffron' down was a printing mistake and no insult of the Indian National Flag was committed by the accused respondents. 5. The trial court after taking into consideration the allegations levelled in the complaint and the conclusions arrived at by the police has observed that as per explanation IV of Section 2 of the Act of 1971, it is clear that only intentional display of Indian National Flag with 'Saffron' down will lead to prosecution under Section 2 of the Act of 1971, however, there is no evidence available on record to suggest that in the calender of 2004 published by the respondent No.2, the Indian National Flag is displayed with 'Saffron' down intentionally. After observing this, the trial court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court has observed that after careful perusal of the photo of the Indian National Flag on the calender of the year 2004 published by the respondent No.2, it is clear that the 'Chakra' on the white 'patti' (white portion) of the Indian National Flag is not clear and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Flag printed on the disputed calender is Indian National Flag. It is also observed by the revisional court that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before the trial court that the respondents have intentionally displayed the Indian National Flag with 'Saffron' down in the said calender. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and after going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that when there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the respondents had displayed the Indian National Flag with 'Saffron' down intentionally on the calender of the year 2004, the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. 8. Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. 9. Hence, this criminal misc. 8. Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. 9. Hence, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed.