TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Brief facts of the case are thus. 3. A crime was registered against the appellant alleging that he committed the offences punishable under sections 406 and 428 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was a partner in a firm consisting of two partners, and the other partner, Zahir Ahmad, was the second accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant and Zahir Ahmad were running a rice mill by the name, Jagdamba Rice Mills. Under the policy of the State Government, the Civil Supplies Corporation entrusted the paddy to M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills for dehusking. There was an agreement between the firm and the corporation in terms whereof the firm was to supply advance rice to the corporatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 406 and 428 IPC was an abuse of the process of Court. The corporation filed a further revision before the High Court and by the impugned order the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, as well as the order passed by the Sessions Judge. This order is challenged before us. 4. We heard the counsel for the appellant, as also the counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent-corporation had already filed a revision against the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in view of section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the second revision before the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the complainant, the High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the trial of the criminal case on merits. This was challenged on the ground that the second revision was not maintainable. A Bench consisting of three Judges of this Court held: "...though the revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 397 is prohibited sub-section 3 thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under section 482 of the Code and as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under section 483, the High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order of the courts below." 6. Reliance was placed in that case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01] 8 SCC 607, this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent powers. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice." 9. In the present case, the appellant was discharged by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the revisional Court confirmed that order after elaborately considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It may also be noted that in Bal Kishan Das v. P.C. Nayar 1991 S....