Skip to content


Ratnoo Mahabir and anr. Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1980CriLJ123
AppellantRatnoo Mahabir and anr.
RespondentThe State
Excerpt:
- - the above apart, it is well established that the high court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. was moved when the applicant had been unsuccessful in a revision......section 482 cr. p. c. was made within time but afterwards it was prayed to be converted into a revision application. it was in that connection that the above-mentioned observations were made. then the high court was the proper forum - either for the application under section 482 cr. p. c. or by way of revision. no other remedy was said to be existing,9. the other case relied upon is khem singh v. nathoo singh 1978 all cri c 262. in this case a petition under section 482 cr. p. c. was moved when the applicant had been unsuccessful in a revision. the other side had contended that as a second revision by same party was barred by sub-section (3) of section 397 cr. p. c., a petition under section 482 cr. p. c. could not be allowed to be permitted as it would defeat the purpose of this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mahavir Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. for remitting the penalty imposed upon them on forfeiture of their bonds.

2. The relevant facts are that the applicant stood surety for one Ganesh in some case under Section 420 I. P. C. On some date Ganesh absented and the bail bonds of the applicants were forfeited. They were asked to show cause as to why the amount of bail bonds be not realised from them- The applicants could not produce the accused and therefore, order was passed for realisation of the amounts of bail bonds which were for Rs. 800/- from each of the two applicants.

3. Afterwards the applicants succeeded in tracing out Ganesh and he was produced in Court. On a trial Ganesh was also acquitted.

4. Later the applicants moved another application to the Magistrate under Section 514 (5) Cr. P. C. for remitting penalty imposed upon them in view of their having succeeded in tracing out the accused and also because the accused was ultimately acquitted, but the learned Magistrate rejected their prayer by order dated 4-12-1972.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicants contends that the learned Magistrate was wrong in not remitting the amount in view of the circumstances mentioned by them, and this order of the Magistrate amounts to an abuse of the process of law and hence inherent power of this Court is being invoked.

6. The applicant Ratnoo is dead and so his petition abates. The petition remained confined only to applicant Chotey Lai. A preliminary objection was raised that under Section 515 Cr. P. C. (old) an appeal or a revision is permissible against all orders passed under Section 514 Cr. P. C. and as the same has not been done, a petition under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. is not maintainable.

7. The learned Counsel for the applicant, however, contends that in spite of such a remedy being available, High Court still has power to entertain application under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. and pass appropriate order as the circumstances of the case require. He refers to Sri Kailash Seth v. State 1978 All Cri C 192. The following observations in this case are relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants:

The above apart, it is well established that the High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it. The High Court can, at any stage, of its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is not dependent on the time when it does so. It can do so at any time and the question of limitation cannot prevent it from exercising its right in this regard. In this case as would appear from the discussion to be made hereafter, illegalities have certainly been done by the Court below and, therefore this Court has got a statutory duty to correct those illegalities so that justice may not be thwarted.

8. These observations are not to be isolated from the facts of the case in which they were made. In that case the question in issue was not one which is raised here. There an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was made within time but afterwards it was prayed to be converted into a revision application. It was in that connection that the above-mentioned observations were made. Then the High Court was the proper forum - either for the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. or by way of revision. No other remedy was said to be existing,

9. The other case relied upon is Khem Singh v. Nathoo Singh 1978 All Cri C 262. In this case a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was moved when the applicant had been unsuccessful in a revision. The other side had contended that as a second revision by same party was barred by Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr. P. C., a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. could not be allowed to be permitted as it would defeat the purpose of this bar. This Court relying upon Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra : 1978CriLJ165 held that action under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be taken notwithstanding any, bar by any section of Cr. P. C. In that case the bar of Section 397 was raised and was rejected on that ground. Here no bar of any section is being pleaded. The question here is that when a remedy by way of appeal or revision in a second court was available to the applicant, will it be open to ignore or not to avail of that remedy and come straight to the High Court to seek redress under Section 561-A Cr. P, C.? In the very case Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (supra) it was specifically mentioned in para 8 that no power under Section 561-A is to be resorted if there is a specific provision for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In this case, as already mentioned there is a specific provision in the Code under Section 515 Cr. P. C. (old)j under which the applicant could go for redress of his grievance. So there being a specific remedy available to him under the law this power could not be exercised.

10. Accordingly, the petition has no force and is rejected. The stay order passed is vacated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //