The High Court has the power to interfere with interlocutory orders through its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC or its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in exceptional circumstances, such as to prevent miscarriage of justice and uphold the principles of natural justice.

V. P. Gupta, J.—This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shortly called the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 397 of the Code, by the petitioner challenging the order passed on 25th February, 1980 upon an application filed under section 311 of the Code by the petitioner for recalling the prosecution witnesses who had been examined in the case on 14th January, 1980.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted tinder section 353 I.P.C. and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and he was charge-sheeted for the said offences on 14th May, 1979. The petitioner did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried. The Magistrate fixed the case for the evidence of the prosecution for 28th June, 1979. On 28th June, 1979, the whole of the prosecution evidence could not be examined because the counsel for the petitioner stated that be was not feeling well and had developed some trouble while coming from his house to the courts. One formal witness, Nar Singh S.H.O. was, however, examined on 28th June, 1979, and the remaining witnesses were bound down for 2nd August, 1979.

3. On 2nd August, 1979, the prosecution witnesses were present but their statements were not recorded as the court of the Judicial Magistrate was being inspected on that date and as such the case was postponed to 6th September, 1979. On 6th September, 1979, Roop Ram, Sub-Inspector, Food and Supplies (a P.W.) was not present and had submitted an application for adjournment. The other P.Ws. were present but the counsel for the petitioner was not available as he was busy in connection with some death and, therefore, the court adjourned the case for prosecution evidence on 25th October, 1979. The petitioner paid the expenses of the two witnesses who were present on that date and whose statements could not be recorded due to the absence of the petitioners counsel. On 25th October, 1979, the prosecution witnesses were present but the accused was absent and as such the court passed the order that the P. Ws. be bound down for 14th January, 1983 and that bailable warrants of arrest be issued against the petitioner for that date. It was further ordered that the expenses of the witnesses shall be paid by the petitioner.

4. On 27th October, 1979, the petitioner filed an application stating that he did not appear in the court on 25th October, 1979, as he had a wrong impression that the case was fixed for 27th October, 1979, and that his absence for 25th October, 1979, was unintentional. The court passed an order on this application on 27th October, 1979 and ordered that the bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner be not issued thereby impliedly meaning that the absence of the petitioner for 25th October, 1979 was condoned and his explanation as mentioned in application was accepted.

5. On the next date, i.e. 14th January, 1980, another application was filed by the petitioner to the effect that his counsel had gone to Simla due to certain urgent work and for this reason the counsel of the petitioner was unable to attend the court and as such the petitioner prayed that the date for recording evidence of the witnesses be adjourned.

6. This prayer of the petitioner was not accepted by the Magistrate and as a consequence the statements of three P.Ws. were recorded on 14th January, 1930, the prosecution evidence was closed, and the case was listed for the statement of the petitioner under section 313 of the Code for 25th February, 1980.

7. On 25th February, 1980, an application was filed by the petitioner through his counsel under section 311 of the Code with a prayer for recalling the P.Ws. so that they may be cross-examined. It was stated in the application that the statements of the P. Ws. had been recorded on 14th January, 1980, in the absence of the petitioners counsel and the witnesses could not be cross-examined by petitione