Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
Sec.397(2) (revisional powers) can limit or affect the exercise of the
inherent power of the High Court, but that such cases would be few and
far between and that the High Court must exercise the inherent power
very sparingly, etc. It will be profitable to refer para 10 of the decision in
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551,
which reads as follows:
Section 292 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 293 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Punjab State Warehousing ... vs M/S Sh.Durga Ji Traders & Ors on 28 November, 2011
6. Ordinarily, when a statutory remedy is provided in terms of
the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or special
statute concerned, then it may not be proper to take recourse to the extra
ordinary inherent powers conferred on this Court under Sec.482 of the
Cr.P.C. This is only a rule of judicial caution and this wholesome
principle of judicial norm of self restraint is not a bar against exercise of
jurisdiction conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. The said position has
been made clear in many rulings of the Apex Court as in PUNJAB STATE
WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, FARIDKOT v. SHREE DURGA JI TRADERS AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2012 SC 700 = 2011 (14) SCC 615, wherein it has been
held by the Apex Court that availability of an alternate remedy per se and
by itself is no ground for dismissal of the application under Sec.482 of
the Cr.P.C. Recently, in the judgment in Prabhu Chawla v. State of
Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4245 = 2016 (8) SCALE 545, the
Apex Court has held that in view of the non-abstante clause contained in
Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., there can be no total ban on exercise of such
wholesome jurisdiction.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Prabhu Chawla vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 5 September, 2016
In the facts of Raj Kapoor's case supra, the Supreme Court
held that the said case falls under the category where accused persons
complain harassment through court's process and further that the
content of the power so far as the facts in that case are concerned, is the
same, be it under Sec.397 (revision powers) or Sec.482 (inherent powers)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that in view of the strong case of
abuse of process of court as averred in that petition, the Apex Court held
that it was wrong on the part of the High Court to have dismissed the
application under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that an
alternative revisional remedy is available and had accordingly set aside
the impugned judgment of the High Court and had remitted the petition
to the High Court for consideration on merits.