Statutory bar on stay of corruption proceedings overrides inherent and revisional criminal powers

An express statutory bar on staying proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prevails over the High Court's inherent and revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 19(3)(c) uses a non obstante clause and prohibits stays on grounds other than those specifically permitted, so Section 482 cannot be invoked to override that restriction and Section 397 cannot be used to achieve the same result. The provision is directed at preventing delay in corruption trials, and stay orders under either jurisdiction are barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be stayed by the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of that Code, despite the bar in Section 19(3)(c) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 19(3)(c) contains an express prohibition that no court shall stay proceedings under the Act on any ground other than those specifically provided. The non obstante clause gives the prohibition overriding effect over the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power under Section 482 of the Code is confined to the Code itself and cannot be used to defeat an express bar created by another enactment. The provision was enacted to prevent delay in corruption trials, and the bar applies equally to stay orders sought in revision or in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Stay of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be granted by the High Court under Section 482 or Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the face of Section 19(3)(c) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An express statutory prohibition against stay of proceedings, reinforced by a non obstante clause, prevails over the High Court's inherent or revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---