1978 (12) TMI 195 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Invocation of Section 482 Cr. P.C. for filing a second revision in the High Court under Section 397(3).
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(3) when the Sessions Judge has already exercised his revisional jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 482 Cr. P.C. for Filing a Second Revision in the High Court under Section 397(3):

The Division Bench referred two significant questions to a Full Bench due to conflicting decisions. The first question was whether a party can invoke Section 482 Cr. P.C. when seeking to file a second revision in the High Court under Section 397(3). The Supreme Court in Amarnath v. State of Haryana held that Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court but does not confer new powers. It stated that if an order is expressly barred under Section 397(2), then Section 482 would not apply. However, in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court modulated this view, stating that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 can be exercised even when an interlocutory order is involved if it is necessary to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

The judgment clarified that Section 397(3) bars a second revision by the same person who has already approached either the High Court or the Sessions Court. However, it does not limit the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers if there is an abuse of process or a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, a party unsuccessful before the Sessions Judge can bring the matter to the High Court's notice under Section 482, but the High Court must scrutinize and be prima facie satisfied of the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice before entertaining such a petition.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Suo Motu Exercise Its Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397(3):

The second question was whether Section 397(3) takes away the High Court's jurisdiction to suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction when the Sessions Judge has already exercised his revisional jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized that Section 397(3) bars a second revision by the same person but does not preclude the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 482. The High Court can suo motu call for and examine any record of any proceeding before an inferior criminal court under Section 397(1) and exercise its powers under Sections 398 and 401 Cr. P.C. The Supreme Court in Nadir Khan v. State and Eknath v. State of Maharashtra held that the High Court's power of revision suo motu is not abolished by the new Criminal Procedure Code.

The judgment concluded that Section 397(3) does not prevent the High Court from exercising its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court's power to act suo motu is not barred by Section 397(3) and can be exercised in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice.

Conclusion:

The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. even when a second revision by the same party is barred under Section 397(3). The High Court can also suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(1) to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, and Section 397(3) does not limit this power. The matters in question were directed to be posted before the regular court to decide their fitness for being entertained under Section 482 Cr. P.C., ensuring that the High Court's interference is necessary in the interests of justice.