Back
S.B.SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH
Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sate of Maharashtra – Respondent
What is the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in quashing or continuing criminal proceedings? What is the relationship between Section 482 inherent powers and the available remedies under Section 397 (revision) and Article 226/227? What are the limitations or circumstances under which the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice?
Key Points: - The High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure ends of justice; it is not merely a revision or appeal forum. (!) - Issuance of process (summons) is not an interlocutory order for purposes of Section 397, and the petitioner may still seek relief under Section 482 or Article 226/227; the remedy is not barred by availability of revision. (!) , (!) - In Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others and subsequent rulings, the Court affirmed that Section 482 can be invoked to quash proceedings when continuation would amount to abuse or would deny justice; inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (!) , (!) , (!) - The inherent powers do not create new jurisdiction but save pre-existing authority; they are exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice. (!) - The Bombay High Court’s position on 482/Article 227 is reconciled with the Apex Court’s guidance, recognizing that alternative remedies exist but are not absolute bars to invoking 482. (!) , (!) - The decision overruled a prior view (V.K. Jain) and directed fresh consideration on merits by the High Court. (!) , (!)
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short `the Code') can be dismissed only on the premise that an alternative remedy of filing a revision application under Section 397 of the Code is available, is the question involved herein.
3. First Appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Gutkha. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Chairman and Managing Director of the company. It is said to be a large organization. It has multi-locational manufacturing units and each of them is said to be headed by senior officials of the company, who were responsible for the conduct of its business. Inter alia on the premise that the samples collected from the manufacturing unit of appellants at Solapur were found to be adulterated in terms of Rule 62(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short `1955 Rules) providing for restriction on the use of anti-caking agents, a criminal complaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Akkalkot, Solapur. Cognizance was taken thereof and summons were i
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
