OTIN PANGING Vs. NAMBOR KAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter Cr. P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur dated 3-12-1984 rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. against the order dated 16-7-1984 passed by the Executive Magistrate, North Lakhimpur in a case under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the opposite parties that no revision petition under Section 397 Cr .P.C. lies in the instant case in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 397, Admittedly, a revision petition had already been filed by the petitioners before the Sessions Judge against the order Of the Executive Magistrate, which was rejected. A second revision by the same petitioners is apparently barred by sub-section (3) of Section 397. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. His submission, however, is that this revision petition should be treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and this Court should exercise its inherent powers in the matter. In the alternative, it is stated that power under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised by this Court and the impugned order should be interfered with. This prayer is objected to by the counsel for the opposite parties on the ground that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and not to circumvent the bar created by Section 397 (3) of the Cr. P.C. According to him, the facts and circumstances in the present case do not justify exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. I have also perused the provisions of Sections 397 and 482 of the Cr. P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution. Under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. revisional jurisdiction has been vested both in the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the records of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety and any finding: sentence or order re-corded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and then to pass necessary order in accordance with the provisions of Sections 398 to 401 of the Cr. P.C. The jurisdiction of both the Courts is concurrent. However, once an application is made under this section either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge no further application can be made by such person to the other in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 397 which reads: 11(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. It provides: p482 Saving of inherent powers of High Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The principles in relation to the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions, were setout by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Slale of Maharashtra in the following terms: