ARUN SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) It appears that unfortunately the High Court by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "the Code") has prevented the flow of justice on the alleged contention of the convicted accused that it was polluted by so called misconduct of the judicial officer. It is true that under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the procedural law which empowered the convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against conviction of the offence. High Court has intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft-pedalled the course of justice at a very crucial stage of the trial.

(3.) In the present case, accused-respondents were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 149 and also under Section 307/149 of the IPC for the incident which took place at about 1.30 p.m. on 26th July, 1981 at the village in Jhahirpur District, Lucknow. It appears that for one or the other reason, the trial dragged on till the end of November, 1997. The proceedings as minuted by the Sessions Judge show that on 20-11-1997 judgment was pronounced convicting Ram Gopal Misra, Ram Naresh and Radhey Sham Mishra under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accused Ram Gopal Misra was absent, but the other two accused went outside the Court and did not return. So the case was posted to the succeeding days and since none of the accused turned up the Sessions Court ordered non-bailable warrants of arrest to be issued against them on 25-11-1997.