SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Bom) 449

V.A.MOHTA, G.D.PATIL
Shyamrani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


JUDGMENT

V.A. Mohta, J.- This is a reference arising out of difference of opinion between two learned Single Judges of this Coon upon the following question :

Whether the application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code independency or read with Article 227 or independently under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable at the instance of the party who has availed the remedy of revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code?

We record the answer in the affirmative for the reasons that follow.

2. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code) confers co-extensive and concurrent revisional powers upon the High Court or any Sessions Judge. A glance at the aforesaid provision will indicate that the revisional powers (i) can be exercised even suo motu (ii) cannot be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order and (iii) cannot be pressed into service second time in the other Court at the behest of the same party in respect of the same subject matter. Section 482 of the Code saves the inherent powers of High Court and reads thus:

"Saving of inherent powers of High Court.

482. I Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inhe
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top