Smt. A. Vimala vs Thiru. N. Alaguvel Nadar

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The petitioner having been aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2008 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 14.8.2008 confirming the order passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No. 891 of 2007 dated 5.3.2008 rejecting the plea of the petitioner to proceed u/s 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent for allegedly tendering false evidence and producing false records before the court of law.

Invoking the provision u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prefers to file the criminal revision case which is seriously objected to by the Registry on the ground that no criminal revision case would lie u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but, only a Criminal Original Petition could be filed thereunder.

The short point which arises for consideration is whether criminal revision petition could be taken on file u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as against the order passed in the appeal u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that an order passed in the appeal u/s 341(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be final and shall not be subject to revision.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as the right to file a revision as against the order passed in the appeal u/s 341(1) has been completely foreclosed u/s 341(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner can very well file a criminal revision petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inasmuch as the Court does not normally call for the records u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is his submission that the papers presented by the petitioner may be taken on file as a criminal revision case u/s 482 so that the court would automatically call for the records from the courts below.

In Ex-Capt. Ashok Kumar Sawhney Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , it has been held as follows:

We agree with the High Court that against an order passed in appeal u/s 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order would not be revisable by the High Court u/s 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but there can be no doubt that the Court is entitled to examine the matter u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code which expressly overrules the bar contained in Section 341 of the Code.

When the right to prefer a revision is foreclosed under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner can invoke the provision u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in exceptional cases to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The provision u/s 341(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure not to go for any revision aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal u/s 341(1) does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the petitioner can very well invoke the provision u/s 482 as against the order passed in the appeal in order to secure the ends of justice and also to prevent the abuse of the process of law. There is no prohibition u/s 482 to call for records from the Appellate or Trial Court. If the Court finds that the abuse of the process of any Court could be unearthed only on perusal of the records concerning the Appellate Court or the Trial Court, the Court is at liberty to call for such records under the above provision of law to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Court may not call for the records from the Appellate or Trial Court while invoking the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 does not appeal to the mind of the Court.

The Supreme Court, in yet another case in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, has held as follows:

Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take a recourse to the revision to the High Court u/s 397(3) or under inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power u/s 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction u/s 483 of the code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power u/s 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code.

If there is failure of justice or grave miscarriage of justice, or abuse of the process of the court or non-compliance of the statutory procedures, in extra-ordinary circumstances, the High Court can either exercise the inherent power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in proper cases entertain even a second revision u/s 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code, it has been categorically observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid ratio. But, in the instant case, the petitioner has not chosen to file second revision invoking the provision u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, he has chosen to file the memorandum in the form of criminal revision petition invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. 2005 (2) Supreme 549 was referred to by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, I find that the question whether a criminal revision would lie within the ambit of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not raised and answered in the aforesaid ratio. Therefore, the said ratio will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner can file only a criminal original petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not a criminal revision case thereunder. She is at liberty to pray before the court to call for the records to appraise itself of the abuse of the process of the courts below in order to secure the ends of justice in the criminal original petition that is taken on file by this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, rejecting the plea of the petitioner to have this case in the form of criminal revision u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Registry is directed to take the case as Criminal Original Petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on file, if it is otherwise in order.