PURITIPATTI JEGA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While referring these matters to Bench or three Judges the Division Bench consisting of Obul Reddi, C. J. and Gangadhara Rao.J. posed the two following questions; (I) Whether it would be open to party to invoke the provisions of S. 482, Cr. P C. 1973, When he seeks to file a second revision in the High Court under S. 397 (3) ? (2) Whether sub-section (3) of S. 397 takes away the jurisdiction of this Court (High Court) to suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction in case where the Sessions Judge had already exercised his revisional jurisdiction under sub-sec. (3) on an application made to him under that sub-section?"

(2.) Earlier Muktadar. J. referred these cases to a Division Bench in view of the conflicting decisions on these aspects f this Court and other High Courts. The Division Bench thought that the two question are very important and should be decided by a Full Bench.

(3.) Apart from the different view points expressed on these questions by learned single Judges of this Court and of other High Courts, the Supreme Court itself in a Bench of two learned Judges held the view m Amarnath v. State of Haryana. AIR 1977 SC 2185 (at p. 2187): "Section 482 contains the inherent powers of the Court and does not confer any new powers but preserves the powers which the High Court already possessed. A harmonious construction of Ss. 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred under S. 397 (2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of S. 482 would not apply. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision on the subject matter. Where there is an express provision barring a particular remedy the Court cannot resort to the exercise of inherent powers". However, in a later decision in MadhuLimaye v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1978 SC 47, a Bench of three Honble Judges of the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the aforesaid statement of the law was not quite accurate and needs some modulation. It is significant to note that Untwalia, J. who was a member of the earlier Bench, spoke for the later Bench of three Judges.