ORDER H.N. Kapoor, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying for setting aside the orders passed by the Sessions Judge of Kumaun in his revi-sional jurisdiction as well as the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 488, Cr. P.C.
2. The main ground urged is that the courts below have wrongly taken into consideration the income of the father of the husband into account which possibly could not have been done under Section 488, Cr. P.C. The courts below have taken into consideration the admission of the husband that he helped his father to cultivate twenty acres of land. He could, therefore, enjoy that income also. This is not such an absurd view taken by the courts below which would justify invoking its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by this Court. Virtually, it amounts to filing of a second revision against the order of the Magistrate which has now been barred under Section 397(3), Cr. P.C.
3. Sri Kesho Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that now more liberal interpretation should be given to Section 482, Cr. P. C, than what used to be given under Section 561-A, Cr. P.C. and this Court should interfere against the orders of the lower courts in such cases where revisions cannot be filed. As I have already observed above, there may be extraordinary cases in which the view taken by the lower courts is so absurd and so shocking to the judicial conscience that this Court may be inclined to invoke its inherent powers to secure ends of justice. But certainly these powers cannot be invoked in a manner that the effect would be just entertaining a second revision which has been expressly barred under Section 397, Cr. P.C. The language of Section 482, Cr. P.C. is exactly the same which was the language of Section 561-A, Cr. P.C. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had interpreted Section 561-A, Cr. P. C, in some cases, leading case being that of R. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab . In my opinion, these authorities still hold good for the purpose of interpreting Section 482, Cr. P.C.
4. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly rejected summarily.