S.S. Dewan, J.
1. This petition purports to have been filed Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with the allegations which are these. Romesh Chander Aggarwal respondent was stated to have been appointed as the Mill Retail Shop Assistant Incharge in Panipat Woollen Mills, Kharar. It is alleged that his duties were to receive goods from the Mill Warehouse for sale and account for the sale proceeds etc. On the allegations of misappropriation and pilferage, he was transferred. An audit of the stocks and accounts of the Retail Shop revealed a shortage of the stocks of the value of Rs. 26000/- of some varieties and excese of the value of Rs. 5000/- of other varieties. The matter was reported to the police vide letter, copy annexure P. 1 and after necessary investigation Romesh Chander Aggarwal accused was challaned. The trial Magistrate discharged him vide order, copy annexure p. 2. holding that there was no evidence that the accused had been initially appointed as a shop assistant or that he was entrusted with certain amount of cloth which was subsequently found to have been misappropriated by him. Relying on a decision in Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra, : 1965CriLJ431 the trial Court found that dominion over a property itself was not sufficient to charge a person of criminal misappropriation. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rup Nagar, on September 30, 1980. By means of the present petition, the orders of the two Courts below are sought to be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code.
2. The present petition has to fail as being incompetent, It is an admitted fact that the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge had been dismissed and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly indicates that the merits of the case had been gone into at considerable length. A concurrent jurisdiction is vested under the law in the High Court and the Sessions Judge to exercise powers of revision. It is provided in Section 397(3) of the Code that if an application for revision is made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person, shall be entertained by either of them. Obviously second revision petition could not have been filed in this case and that is why a recourse to Section 482 of the Code seems to have been made. However, such a course cannot be permitted in the garb of an application filed under some other provision of law. In case Amar Nath v. State of Haryana : 1977CriLJ1891 it has been observed as under (at p 1893 of Cri LJ):-
Section 482 contains the inherent powers of the Court and does not confer any new powers but preserves the powers which the High Court already possessed. A harmonious construction of Sections 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred Under Section 397(2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case, the provisions of Section 482 would not apply. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject-matter. Where there is an express provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers.
3. In any case, before invoking inherent powers of this Court Under Section 482 of the Code, the petitioner is called upon to show some abuse of the process of the Court or a case of gross injustice which is apperent on the record
4. However, during the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Courts below had failed to go through the documents and appreciate the statements of the witnesses showing the dominion of the accused over the property misappropriated by him. To buttress this argument he cited Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra : 1978CriLJ165 ; In re Puritipati Jagga Reddy, : AIR1979AP146 (FB), Som Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan : 1972CriLJ897 and M. L. Goel v. Mukhtiar Singh, 1980 Chand LR (Pb & Har) 262. It is needless to refer to the decisions in the aforesaid cases because the ratio thereof is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Be that as it may, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have not been substantiated in the evidence produced by the petitioner.
5. In the light of the above discussion, the petition being meritless, it is herein dismissed.