Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
S.C. PARIJA
William Michael Hurtubise - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp. parties
CRLMC NO.3358 OF 2013
Decided On : 17th January, 2014
2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Sec. 482 - When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence - Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High Court - It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code - It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to -an order under the Code (i) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, (iii) and to otherwise secure the ends of justice - Detail stated.
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliauid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine guo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debitio justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of Court, to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice and in exercise of such powers, Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report or the complaint, the Court ’may examine the question of fact. When a report or complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. (Para - 11)
JUDGMENT
S.C. PARIJA, J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the FIR, registered as Bhubaneswar Airfield P.S. Case No.220, dated 18.09.2013, corresponding to C.T.No.3611 of 2013, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, under Section 25 of the Arms Act and to refund the cash security of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner, as a condition for grant of bail and to return his passport and visa, deposited with the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a citizen of United States of America (“USA” for short) and is an employee of STX Service Americas, LLC, at their Houston location in the State of Texas in U.S.A., as one of their field service engineers. The petitioner was deployed along with two other engineers of the Company and one technician, to attend the off shore drillship, which is under contract with the petitioner’s Company, for engine maintenance. The petitioner and other engineers and technicians of the Company were required to perform specialized technical work on the drillship main diesel engines, which have been produced by the group of companies of STX Service Americas, LLC and built into the drillship for providing power for the positioning equipment, the drilling equipment and the vessel’s accommodations. The petitioner and the other technical staffs of the Company were required to carry out specialized job, which the crews of the drillship are not experienced enough to perform. The owner of the drillship is a Houston based offshore drilling company. During the period of his deployment for engine maintenance of the drillship, the petitioner would continue to draw his salary from STX Service Americas, LLC, as he continues to be the employee of the said Company. It was planned that the petitioner and his three colleagues will return to Houston in U.S.A., immediately after completing their tasks on board the drillship.
3. The petitioner along with his colleagues left Houston in the State of Texas in USA and via Amsterdam, arrived in New Delhi. From there they boarded a flight to Bhubaneswar and arrived at Biju Pattnaik Airport in Bhubaneswar on 18.09.2013. While the petitioner and his colleagues were about to board the Helicopter to proceed to the place of work in Paradeep, he was detained by the CISF personnel and was informed that during screening of his baggage, 8 nos. of 0.22 mm bullets have been found in his handbag. The petitioner explained to the CISF personnel at the Airport that the bullets may have been left behind in his handbag due to oversight and that he is possessing a Arms Licence issued by the State of Florida in USA and if he is given some time, he can obtain copy of the said Arms Licence by fax. He further pleaded that the 0.22 mm bullets are harmless and is only used for sporting purpose in a Sporting Rifle. The CISF personnel did not heed to the request and plea and instead handed over the petitioner to the Airfield Police Station, Bhubaneswar and submitted a written report dated 18.09.2013, which reads as under:-
“To
The Inspector-in-Charge,
Airfield Police Station,Bhubaneswar.
Sub: Information of Ammunition detected at SHA of
B.P. Airport, Bhubaneswar, Reg.
Sir,
It is intimated that, one passenger namely, Mr. William Michael Hurtubise S/o Mr.William Oliver Hurtubise of 14827, Glade brook, Dr.Houston Tx-77068 (USA) Passport No.454978968 was travelling from Bhubaneswa to Rig-plex offshore by Chartered Helicopter of M/s-Global Vectra Helicorp. He was carrying 08 in Nos.0.22 live ammunition in his hand bag which was detected at security hold area during hand bag X-ray screening by Sub-Insp/Exc. Prem Singh at about 08. 05 Hrs. on dt.18.09.2013. The said Sl./Exc. brought the matter to security hold in-charge, Insp/Ex S.N.Kumar who questioned the passenger about ammunition and its valid licence. But individual is unable to produce it and told that he is having USA arms licence which is in USA and he is working with O
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
