ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) has been brought by the petitioner Asstt, Collector of Customs, Palam Airport, New Delhi, for quashing of the order dated 17-9-1983 passed by Shri Mahesh Chandra, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi discharging respondent No. 1 Sudershan Kumar Modi in respect of the offences under Ss. 132 and 135 of the Custom Act, 1962 and under S.5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The aforesaid order of discharge by the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi was passed in revision petition brought by respondent no. I Sudershan Kumar Modi feeling aggrieved from the order dated 8-9-1981 of the learned A.C.M.M., New Delhi framing the charge against him under the aforesaid provisions of law.

(2.) Mr. Watel representing respondent No. 1 has assailed the maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code on the ground that the petitioner had the right to file a revision against the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in the High Court but the petitioner did not file any revision for which limitation expired before 12-1-1984 as a result of which the impugned order has become final and conclusive and cannot be set aside by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code. In support of this contention he has cited some authorities the latest of which is Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, AIR 1983 S.C. 67 (at page 69) wherein it has been held as follows :-

(3.) In the case in hand the petitioner bad a remedy by way of filing a revision petition in the High Court against the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge under S. 397 of the Code but he failed to avail himself of the same and rather allowed it to lapse by not filing the same within the limitation allowed under the law which expired on 12-1-1984 and so in view of the aforesaid authorities it should not be open to him to avail of or to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code, which is to be used sparingly and only when there is no other remedy provided for the redressal of the grievance in the Code.