Jagdish Chandra - (1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) has been brought by the petitioner Asstt, Collector of Customs, Palam Airport, New Delhi, for quashing of the order dated 17-9-1983 passed by Shri Mahesh Chandra, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi discharging respondent No. 1 Sudershan Kumar Modi in respect of the offences under Ss. 132 and 135 of the Custom Act, 1962 and under S.5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The aforesaid order of discharge by the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi was passed in revision petition brought by respondent no. I Sudershan Kumar Modi feeling aggrieved from the order dated 8-9-1981 of the learned A.C.M.M., New Delhi framing the charge against him under the aforesaid provisions of law.
(2.) Mr. Watel representing respondent No. 1 has assailed the maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code on the ground that the petitioner had the right to file a revision against the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in the High Court but the petitioner did not file any revision for which limitation expired before 12-1-1984 as a result of which the impugned order has become final and conclusive and cannot be set aside by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code. In support of this contention he has cited some authorities the latest of which is Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, AIR 1983 S.C. 67 (at page 69) wherein it has been held as follows :- "It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the present Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the fitigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. If these considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between Sections 482 and 397(2) the preseat Code." In another authority of the Supreme Court reported as Madha Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 S.C. 47 (at page 50) the following principles were spelt out from the provision of law contained in S. 482 of the Code observing that the same have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions :- "(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code." Then Gopal Dass v. The State, AIR 1978 Crl. L.J. 961 (Full Bench) of our own High Court have dealt with this very question (at page 964) which reads as follows :- "This question having been settled authoritatively it is not open to the petitioners to invoke the inherent powers of this Court having failed to avail of their right of appeal or revision. Inherent powers of the Court preserved in S. 482 of the Code and as held in a catena of cases are to be exercised, namely, (1) for giving effect to any order passed under the Code, or (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice." It was also observed in that authority that while exercising powers it has to be borne in mind that this power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and also that S. 482 of the Code which saves the inherent powers of the Court cannot override any express provision in the statute which saves that power and if there is an express provision in a statute governing a particular subject there is no scope for invoking or exercising the inherent powers of the Court because the Court ought to apply the provisions of the statute which are made advisedly to govern the particular subject-matter. In Bhiku Ram Jain etc. v. M.C.D. & others, 1977 I.L.R. 517 (DB) (at page 532) in para 41 it is remarked that the inherent power recongnised by law under S. 482 of the Code is, however, designed to meet those cases for which there is no provision in the Code. In para 42 thereof it is also mentioned that the inherent power is to be used sparingly only when it is necessary in the interest of justice to exercise the power.
(3.) In the case in hand the petitioner bad a remedy by way of filing a revision petition in the High Court against the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge under S. 397 of the Code but he failed to avail himself of the same and rather allowed it to lapse by not filing the same within the limitation allowed under the law which expired on 12-1-1984 and so in view of the aforesaid authorities it should not be open to him to avail of or to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code, which is to be used sparingly and only when there is no other remedy provided for the redressal of the grievance in the Code.;