RAJARATNAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In CC 35 of 1984 the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadungalloor acquitted the second respondent of offences punishable under S.279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 31-5-1985 basing on the decision in David v. State of Kerala ( 1984 KLT 849 ) and identical decisions of some other High Courts on the ground that the investigating agency violated the provisions of S.167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. pw.2 one of the injured, filed this petition under S.482 of the Code, praying that the order of acquittal may be quashed and trial directed to be proceeded with.

(2.) It is true that the decision in David's case (1984 KLT 849) was later overruled by a Division Bench decision in Balakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala and others ( 1986 KLT 485 ). As the law now stands according to the interpretation of S.167(5) in that decision the acquittal ordered by the Magistrate is evidently wrong. But when the Magistrate decided the case and when pw.2 filed this petition the decision in David's case held the field and according to the interpretation of S.167(5) as it then stood, the decision was correct. State has not chosen to file an appeal against the acquittal and pw.2 has not chosen to challenge the acquittal in revision, even though such remedies were available. The decision has thus become final and conclusive.

(3.) An acquittal or a conviction could be normally challenged only by any one of the methods provided under the Code. Without resorting to those provisions S.482 of the Code cannot be invoked for challenging judicial pronouncements. Inherent powers could be invoked only for giving effect to orders or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice when no other provision is available. It is not a substitute for appeal or revision and it is not intended to be invoked when the decision could be challenged by appeal, revision or other methods allowed by law. Pendency of a proceeding under S.482 without resorting to appeal or revision, when those remedies are available, will not have the effect of saving finality of judicial pronouncements.