Inherent jurisdiction and censor certificates: technical defects cannot bar justice, and certification is relevant but not conclusive in obscenity cases.

The inherent power of the High Court remains available even where revisional jurisdiction may also lie, and it should not be defeated by a purely technical objection such as the absence of a certified copy when the impugned order is already on record. That power may still be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. In obscenity prosecutions, a censor certificate under cinematograph law is relevant and weighty evidence, but it is not conclusive and does not bind the criminal court, which must independently determine whether the penal ingredients are established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could refuse to entertain a petition under the inherent power on the ground that a revision lay under the revisional jurisdiction and a certified copy of the impugned order was not filed. (ii) Whether a certificate granted by the censor authority under the cinematograph law is conclusive or only relevant in a prosecution for obscenity under the penal law.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could refuse to entertain a petition under the inherent power on the ground that a revision lay under the revisional jurisdiction and a certified copy of the impugned order was not filed.

Analysis: The inherent power preserved by the Code is not eclipsed merely because revisional jurisdiction may also be available. Although the power must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used to circumvent specific bars in the Code, it remains available where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. An interlocutory or intermediate order does not create an absolute bar if the facts disclose a case fit for exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The insistence on a certified copy, when the original order is already on the record, is an empty technicality that should not defeat substantive justice.

Conclusion: The petition under the inherent power was maintainable and the High Court erred in rejecting it for want of the certified copy.

Issue (ii): Whether a certificate granted by the censor authority under the cinematograph law is conclusive or only relevant in a prosecution for obscenity under the penal law.

Analysis: A censor certificate does not create an irrebuttable defence and does not bar the criminal court from examining whether the ingredients of obscenity are established. It is, however, a relevant and weighty circumstance because the certificate represents the judgment of a statutory body specially constituted to assess suitability for public exhibition. The criminal court must still apply its own mind to the penal ingredients and cannot abdicate that function to the censor authority.

Conclusion: The censor certificate is relevant but not conclusive, and it does not oust the criminal court's jurisdiction to try the offence.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court order succeeded, the rejection of the petition was set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent power of the High Court remains available notwithstanding revisional remedies where intervention is needed to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, and a statutory censor certificate is only evidentiary material, not a complete defence, in an obscenity prosecution.

---