SEN (Acting C.J.)— These four references by Kudal J. raise a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The question before the Division Bench is:—

"Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are subject to and controled by section 397 (2) of the Code i.e. in relation to the interlocutory orders against which no revision lies?"

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has brought about many changes. One of the basic changes is the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction. Sec. 397 (2) bare a revision against an interlocutory order.

4. There is a difference of opinion between different Judges of this Court on the question whether section 397 (2) operates as a bar to the entertainment of an application under section 482 of the Code.

5. There is also a sharp conflict of opinion between the different High Courts. The High Courts are equally divided. There are two schools of thought prevalent. The first is that in case of interlocutory orders, the bar created by sub-sec. (2) of section 397 of the new Code, cannot be circumvented by having recourse to section 482. The underlying principle for this view is that section 482 of the new Code, which is analogous to section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not apply to cases which are covered by specific provision of the Code. The Advocates of this thought reason that the new Code has mode a clear departure from the old Code and has prohibited interference by, revision in courts with proceedings in inferior court at interlocutory stages. This school of thought is represented by the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Andhra Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh and Orissa viz , Changdeo Kisan Jadhav vs. Chindya Jain(l), Isaq Mehboob vs. Vithalrao Nagorao Kelgaonkar(2), Budaraju Seshagiri Rao vs. T. V. Sarma (3), Sant Lal Nagrath, Tis Hazari Delhi vs. Kishan Lal Sun (4), Amarnath Rula Ram vs. Kanwar Joginder Singh (5), Rajanikanta Mehta vs. State of Orissa (6). In this Court, that view has been taken by J. P Jain J , in Har Prashad vs. Radhey Lal (7) and Sharma J,, in the State of Rajasthan vs. Ramnarain Upadhyaya (8).

6. In Changdeo Kisan Jadhav vs. Chindya Jain(l) supra, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed:—

"It is not proper to construe Section 482, which confers inherent jurisdiction on this Court, In such a way as to nullify the iegislative bar to the entertainment of revision applications against the inter-locutory orders in criminal proceedings The inherent powers under sec. 482 are conferred on this Court by the Code not to defeat the mandatory provision, contained elsewhere in the Code; but "to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order" under the Code "or to prevent obuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

7. In Isaq Mehboob vs. Vithalrao Nagorao Kelgaonkar (2) Division, Bench or the same High Court, after referring to section 482 (old section 561-A) observed:—

"In the present scheme of codification and amendment of the law relating to Criminal Procedure in the light of the introduction of sub-section (2) of section 397, it would not be unsafe to take a positive view that in so far as inter-locutory orders are concerned, the re. medial measure provided by section 561-A of the old Code (Sec. 482 of the new Code) is rendered ineffective."

8. In Budaraju Seshagiri Rao vs. T. V. Sarma (3)a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed :—

"The new Code has made a clear departure from the old Code and has prohibited interference by revisional courts with proceedings. In inferior courts at interlocutory stages. Realizing this position the petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 482 Criminal P C. Section 482 Criminal P.C. merely preserves the inherent powers of the High court."

He then continues—

"It is well established that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document