The judgment established that the High Court's inherent powers under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked even when revision is barred under S.397(3), but these powers should be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to re-open a finding of fact.

Pareed Pillay, CJ.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked in a case where revision is barred under S.397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Matter has been referred to the Division Bench by Thomas, J.

2. Petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act. In C.C. 284 of 1989 Magistrate found him guilty under S.55(a) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also' to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Revision was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. It is against the order in Crl.R.P. 69 of 1992 that the above Crl.M.C. has been filed before this Court.

3. Section 397 of the Code enables the High Court or the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Sub-section (3) provides that 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 either of them. As the Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition, the aggrieved party cannot certainly invoke the revisional powers of the High Court. In other words, second revision is barred.

4. Though second revision under S.397(3) is barred, High Court's inherent jurisdiction to consider the matter raised before it within its powers under S.482 of the Code cannot be denied. Certainly under the guise of the powers exercised under S.482 a party cannot expect the matter to be heard by the High Court as if in a criminal revision.

5. In Dharampal v, Ramshri (AIR 1993 SC 1361) the Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether revision would be maintainable in a case where the Sessions Judge confirmed the order of the Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that second revision will not lie to the High Court and that the matter cannot be brought before the Court under S.482 of the Code. Supreme Court made the position clear that inherent powers under S.482 cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As second revision is barred under S.397(3), no criminal revision can be entertained before the High Court.

6. The powers of the High Court under S.482 cannot be equated with its powers under S.397. Powers of the High Court under S.482 stand on a different footing S.397(3) cannot affect the amplitude of inherent powers of the High Court. Section 482 starts with a non-obstante clause. Section 482 reads:

"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 inherent powers of the High Court preserved by S.482 are not in, any way limited or abridged on the ground that no second revision is maintainable under S.397(3). Embargo under S.397(3) operates only in the exercise of the revisional power of the High Court. In other words, the High Court will not exercise its power of revision in a case where S.397(3) squarely applies. But that does not mean that the High Court cannot exercise its powers under S.482 whenever situation demands. In a case where there is abuse of process of the Court or it becomes necessary to secure the ends of justice, the High Court can certainly interfere invoking its powers under Ss.482. Thus, in a case where there is enough material for the High Court to invoke its jurisdiction under S.482 it cannot refuse to interfere on the ground that the