The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are not barred by the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Code, which bars a second revision by the same person.

S.S.Sodhi, J.

1. The matter here concerns the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as to the Code), in the context of the provisions of Section 397(3) thereof. It comes up on a reference to a larger Bench by S. S. Grewal, J The substantial question of law, of undoubted public importance raised being :-

Whether the provisions of Section 397(3) would operate, or, constitute a total, or, complete bar to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even in cases, where, it is necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, to prevent the abuse of process of any Court, or, otherwise to secure the ends of justice ?"

The legislature while providing for revision under Section 397 of the Code and couferring jurisdiction thereby upon the High Court as also the Court of Sessions proceeded to enact a specific bar against a second revision by the provisions of subsection (3) thereof, which reads as under :-

"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 the other of them "

There are, at the same time, vested in the High Court, inherent powers preserved for it by Section 482 of the Code, which is in these terms :-

" Saving of inherent powers of High Court:.-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."

This clear and apparent legislative intent, as expressed by the opening words of Section 482. "Nothing in this Code--------" of the inherent powers of the High Court thereunder, not in any manner being curtailed or affected by the bar contained in Section 397, has, however got dragged into the arena of controversy by some judicial pronouncements tending to express a somewhat contrary view. When, in the first instance, the Supreme Court bad occasion to consider the provisions of Section 482 of the Code in the light of the. bar to revision against an interlocutory order, as prescribed by Section 397(2) in Amar Nath v. State of -Haryana, 1977(4) Cr. L. T. 395. Fazal Ali. J. observed :-

"-A harmonious construction of Sections 397 and 482 would lead to the irresistible conclusion that where a particular order is expressly barred under Section 397(2) and cannot be the subject of revision by the High Court, then to such a case the provisions of Section 482 would not apply.-"

2. Not long thereof, however, the Supreme Court was constrained to charge course, so to say, when in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, A, I. R. 1978 S. C. 47. it was remarked that the view as expressed in Amar Naths case (supra), namely; that where revision under Section 397(2) is expressly barred, the inherent powers under Section 482 could not be availed of to defeat such bar was not quite accurate and needs some modulation." After recognizing that Nothing in this Code in Section 482 would include sub-section (2) of Section 397 too, Untwalia, J. speaking for the Court observed :-

"-In our opinion, happy solution of this problem, would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one or she other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Cod