( 1. ) THIS is a revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 28-1-1973 passed by Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in a Misc. Criminal Case.

( 2. ) THE non-applicant Rafique Ahmad is an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). On a report made by the Corporation against the non-applicant Rafique Ahmad, the police has registered an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of the Corporation. The non-applicant was arrested on 1811-1972 and the investigation is still proceeding. No challan has, however, been filed so far by the police against the non-applicant.

( 3. ) ON 23-10-1972, the non-applicant was suspended by the Corporation and departmental enquiry was commenced against him. He has been served with a charge-sheet and has been called upon to explain the charges against him. On 11-1-1973 the non-applicant filed an application before the Magistrate for restraining the applicant from continuing the departmental enquiry against him on the following grounds:

(i) The departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution would be on the same facts. (ii) Continuance of the enquiry would obstruct and interfere with the cause of justice and would also prejudice his defence.

( 4. ) THE application was opposed by the Corporation but it was allowed by the learned Magistrate and he issued an injunction directing the Corporation not to insist on the explanation of the non-applicant on the points covered by the police report during the pendency of the investigation and the subsequent trial of the case, if any. Being aggrieved by this order the Corporation filed a revision petition in the Court of Session, but it was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The Corporation has, therefore, come up in revision before this Court.

( 5. ) THE main point for consideration in this case is whether the Magistrate was competent to issue an injunction of this nature.

( 6. ) AS the order in question was passed on 28-2-1973 the matter would be governed by the old Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly there was no provision in the old Code empowering the Magistrate to issue an injunction of this nature. There is also no such provision in the new Code. The power of the criminal Courts or the Magistrates to grant injunctions or prohibitory orders is extremely limited Under Section 142 of the old Code and Magistrate can issue an injunction if he considers that immediate measures are necessary to prevent imminent danger or injury of a serious kind to the public. Under Section 144 the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate specially empowered can issue prohibitory orders to prevent continuance of public nuisance or in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. Criminal Courts are not invested with wide powers of issuing injunctions like Civil Courts and therefore, they must function within the scope of powers conferred by the Code,

( 7. ) IN the absence of any specific provision conferring power on a Magistrate to issue injunction in a matter like this, we have to consider whether such an injunction could be issued by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, it is no doubt true that Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely saves the inherent powers of the High Court and is silent with regard to any such powers possessed by subordinate Courts. But this does not mean that subordinate Courts cannot when necessary exercise inherent powers. It is an established proposition of law that Courts of Justice must possess inherent powers apart from the powers expressly conferred on them by the provisions of law which are necessary to their existence and the proper discharge of duties imposed upon them by law. Criminal Courts have an inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. But this inherent powe