A K SUBBAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come before us on account of the office objection.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal which are required to be stated briefly are as follows: The appellants presented a Criminal Revision Petition No. 482/1986 in this court purporting to be a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. While that petition was pending disposal, three applications were filed as interlocutory applications namely; I.As. II, III and IV. LA. No. II was an application to urge additional grounds mentioned therein to be included in the revision application which was pending. LA. No. III was an application to implead one Shri Rajendra Prasad who had been named as accused-5 in Criminal Case No. 62/1986 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. LA. No. IV was an application which was somewhat consequential to the prayer made in LA. No. II seeking Union of India also to be impleaded as a party. IA. No. II was dismissed i.e., additional grounds to be urged were not permitted to be urged for the reasons given by the learned Judge. But however, be came to allow LA. No, III and consequently LA. No. IV was also rejected in view of the rejection of LA. No. II. Against that common order dated 30th November, 1990 the present appeal on the original side is presented purporting to be an appeal filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

(3.) Shri L.G. Havanur, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that a original side appeal as presented is maintainable because the revision petition which is not merely a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. but also as an application invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and therefore it was a original proceeding initiated in this court in terms of the provisions contained in Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. In other words, the thrust of the argument is that inherent powers confer jurisdiction on this court on the original side in any matter and therefore an order passed pursuant to that jurisdiction is appealable. In that circumstance Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. would confer original side jurisdiction on this court. Simply stated the argument means that Section 482, Cr. P.C. has done no more than save the jurisdiction of all Courts to do every thing that is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to meet the ends of justice and as such even though there is no specific conferment of appellate jurisdiction, this court has such jurisdiction in all matters.