ASSAN HAJI Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inherent power under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is sought to be invoked here. That section reads:

(2.) The decisions of the Supreme Court in Pampapathy v. State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 286 and Superintendent and Remembrancer, W.B. v. Mohan Singh AIR 1975 SC 1002 do not show that it is a different interpretation that has to be given to the provisions of the Section. In Henry Fernandez v. State 1971 KLT 510 in dealing with S.561A of the predecessor Code of 1898 corresponding to S.482 of the present Code of 1973 I said that the only limitations for exercise of the powers under that section were absence of express provision in the Code to redress wrong and exercise of the power being necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I did not consider there what the words "or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" appearing in the section meant.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that here he was invoking the inherent power as there was abuse of the process of the court and he mentioned the order passed on September 13, 1975, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, as constituting abuse of the process of the Court. That order was passed in a summary proceeding under S.133 to 138 of the Code for removal of nuisance. The petitioner here is said to have caused obstruction to the use of a pubic pathway. It was that obstruction that was sought to be removed. Conditional order under S.133 was passed on June 26, 1975. There was dispute between the parties about the public nature of the pathway. Title deeds, Exts. D1 and D2, and rent and revenue receipts, Exts. D3 to D5, were produced by the petitioner in support of his denial of the public nature of the pathway The Magistrate did not find them reliable evidence in support of such denial. Consequently he passed on September 13, 1975 order under S.137(2) refusing to stay the proceeding but to continue it. Final order under S.138 was passed on December 20, 1975. That order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. In the revision petition no ground was taken that the order passed on September 13, 1975 constituted abuse of the process of the court. The only point pressed when the revision petition was heard was about the propriety of the final order passed under S.138 of the Code The revision petition was dismissed on September 27, 1976.