Skip to content


Thomas and anr. Vs. Emmannuel and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1986CriLJ428
AppellantThomas and anr.
RespondentEmmannuel and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the question that arises for consideration is whether the inherent power of the court could be allowed to be invoked for the purpose of making good what was lost by inaction in not preferring an appeal in time. ultimately the complaint failed and it appears that there was some observation or finding that the matter involved is only of a civil dispute. when only that attempt failed the normal remedy of appeal was resorted to. the argument that this is a hard case is also of no avail because hard cases cannot make bad law......padmanabhan, j.1. in this crl. m.c. the question that arises for consideration is whether the inherent power of the court could be allowed to be invoked for the purpose of making good what was lost by inaction in not preferring an appeal in time.2. the firstpetitioner was complainant in a private complaint which involved misappropriation of a fishing boat alleged to have been entrusted to the first accused in that case who is the first respondent herein. during the pendency of the complaint an order under section 451 of the code was passed entrusting the boat or its parts to the present first petitioner along with a surety on execution of bond. the surety is the 2nd petitioner. ultimately the complaint failed and it appears that there was some observation or finding that the matter.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. In this Crl. M.C. the question that arises for consideration is whether the inherent power of the Court could be allowed to be invoked for the purpose of making good what was lost by inaction in not preferring an appeal in time.

2. The firstpetitioner was complainant in a private complaint which involved misappropriation of a fishing boat alleged to have been entrusted to the first accused in that case who is the first respondent herein. During the pendency of the complaint an order under Section 451 of the Code was passed entrusting the boat or its parts to the present first petitioner along with a surety on execution of bond. The surety is the 2nd petitioner. Ultimately the complaint failed and it appears that there was some observation or finding that the matter involved is only of a civil dispute. Many proceedings followed. It came to the question of enforcing the bond. The Magistrate proceeded against both the petitioners and ordered enforcement of the bond Against that order, instead of preferring an appeal as provided under Section 449 of the Code, the petitioners thought of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and they filed a petition under Section 482. That was dismissed with an observation that an appeal is the remedy available. An appeal was filed and it was dismissed as out of time. Against that order a revision was filed before this Court and that was also dismissed. It was under such circumstances that the present petition was filed stating that it is an extreme hard case in which the inherent jurisdiction of the Court will have to be exercised in order to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court.

3. Section 482 of the Code is often being attempted to be used against the object and purpose for which it is intended. Those powers are intended to be exercised in cases of grave and clear injustice in order to give effect to orders, prevent abuse of process of courts or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. That power cannot be exercised when there is a remedy already available. For doubtful or trivial matters also inherent power cannot be invoked.

4. The impugned order is one under Section 446 of the Code and it is appealable under Section 449. Nothing prevented filing an appeal from that order dt. 31-5-1984. Instead the attempt in vain was to seek the inherent power. When only that attempt failed the normal remedy of appeal was resorted to. It was out of time and dismissed for the reason. That means there was no ground to condone the delay also. Dismissal of the revision against that order by this Court further concluded that point. After exhausting all available remedies under the specific provisions of the code the present attempt is to gain, what would not be achieved or what was rejected under the specific provisions, under the inherent powers. The inherent power is not intended for that purpose. Otherwise after getting defeated in all available remedies like appeal, revision, review etc. Section 482 could be tried as a last resort. If so there could be as many petitions under Section 482 as there are number of proceedings in all the courts taken together. Inherent power is not intended to help those who sleep over their rights. The argument that this is a hard case is also of no avail because hard cases cannot make bad law.

5. I do not think that the facts enumerated above involve any question of abuse of the process of Court. No question of securing ends of justice also arises. The petitioners slept over their rights in preferring an appeal. That laches cannot be allowed to be rectified by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Petition is, therefore, dismissed.


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