Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot override the statutory appeal remedy after conviction, so interim stay orders were unsustainable.

The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is extraordinary and must be used sparingly to secure justice or prevent abuse of process, not to displace specific procedural remedies. Where a conviction has already been recorded and the accused has an efficacious statutory appeal, the High Court should not interpose at that stage or stay the post-conviction warrant process. On the facts presented, the existence of the appellate remedy barred recourse to Section 482, so the High Court's order entertaining the petition and the consequential interim relief were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could entertain a petition under the inherent powers of the Code and stay the post-conviction process when the convicted accused had an efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 is extraordinary and must be used sparingly only to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, and not to override specific procedural provisions. Once the trial court had pronounced conviction and the accused had a statutory right of appeal, the High Court ought not to have interposed at that stage or stayed the warrant process. The availability of the appellate remedy barred recourse to Section 482 on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The High Court's order entertaining the petition under Section 482 and the consequential interim orders were unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded.

---