Inherent criminal jurisdiction survives the second-revision bar only in exceptional cases; lottery-related cheating charges were upheld.

Section 482 inherent power is not wholly barred by the prohibition on a second revision under Section 397(3) CrPC; it may still be invoked in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, but only sparingly. The Court also held that materials can justify framing of charge where lottery tickets are alleged to have been printed contrary to the governing statutory conditions, read with the Act's requirement of authentic ticket control, and where the alleged deception extends to the purchasing public, not merely the State. On that basis, the challenge to the charges failed and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite the bar against a second revision under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the materials justified framing of charge for contravention of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 and the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite the bar against a second revision under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The bar under Section 397(3) does not completely foreclose the High Court's inherent power where interference is necessary to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, but it is not excluded merely because a revision has already been pursued before the Sessions Court.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable in principle, though relief depended on whether the case disclosed exceptional circumstances warranting interference.

Issue (ii): whether the materials justified framing of charge for contravention of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010 and the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Rule 3(5) requiring printing of lottery tickets in a Government Press or approved high security press was read with Section 4(b) of the Act, which obliges the State to ensure the authenticity of tickets. On that basis, violation of the Rule was treated as part of the statutory contravention. The Court also held that cheating was not confined to the Government of Sikkim alone, since the public purchasing the tickets on the belief that the lottery was being conducted lawfully were also deceived. The materials therefore disclosed a prima facie case for trial and did not justify discharge.

Conclusion: The charges were held to be sustainable and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the orders of the courts below failed, and the criminal miscellaneous case was dismissed, leaving the prosecution to proceed with the charges at trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court may invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the bar under Section 397(3) only in exceptional cases of abuse of process or failure of justice, and a charge is sustainable where the materials disclose a prima facie statutory contravention read with the governing conditions of the lottery regime and an arguable case of cheating against the deceived public.

---