The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited circumstances under which the inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash a conviction order, emphasizing the need for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice.

JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - This instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[In short 'Cr.P.C'] is filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to quash the judgment of conviction dtd. 14/6/2016 passed against him in C.C.No.649/2015 on the file of learned V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, [In short, 'trial court'] for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.[In short, ' Act, 1881'.]

2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri Jangam Varun Roy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

3. A rather interesting question is raised by the Petitioner seeking to quash judgment of conviction that is passed against him by the trial court. The peculiar circumstance of the case is, though trial court pronounced judgment convicting the petitioner, it could not pass sentence against the Petitioner since he failed to appear. Undisputed fact is that a non-bailable warrant is pending against the Petitioner on this aspect.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that after pronouncement of the judgment of conviction, the complainant filed a full satisfaction memo before the trial court acknowledging the receipt of the amount in connection with C.C.No.649/2015. He would further submit that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the Petitioner by recording the full satisfaction memo. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 sails alongwith the Petitioner. Point for Determination

5. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. The point that would arise for determination is;

"Whether this Court can quash the conviction orderby exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., when the trial court has not passed any sentence?"

Determination by the Court

6. Before delving into the instant case, it is appropriate to chalk out certain settled principles of law in the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 482. The provision which is placed in Chapter 37 of the Code reads as follows;

Sec. 482- 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."

7. The idea behind conferring inherent power to the High Court is to meet exigencies that may likely arise, where for a given issue the Cr.P.C. fails to provide a specific provision. To put it differently, no legislative enactment can be so complete a package to deal with the procedure concerning all causes that are likely to arise. It is for this reason that the Courts have certain inherent powers, in addition to the ones that are expressed by law, i.e., for the proper discharge of their functions and for effective administration of justice.

8. Inherent powers are, as the phrase suggests, inalienably present with the Court. They are not conferred, but are merely safeguarded and preserved by Sec. 482 to the High Court. This Sec. is a reminder that the High Court is not a mere court in law but also court of justice. Once a Court, be it civil or criminal is required to administer justice, it becomes inherently essential to have the necessary powers to perform such functions, vide "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it may not exist). Explaining this maxim, Halsbury's Laws of India (Criminal Procedure) provides the following;[Halsbury's Laws of India (Criminal Procedure, Vol 12(1)) 2nd Edition]

"It is a well-established principle that whenever anything is required to be done by law, and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not autho