ARUN SHANKAR SHUKLA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 23-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ARUNSHANKARSHUKLA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
JULY 23, 1999 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : ft. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 482 . 
c 
High Court-Inherent jurisdiction-Scope and ambit of-Trial court 
convicted accused and posted the case for hearing on sentence-.But accused, 
instead of preferring statutory appeal against conviction, filf!d petition under 
S.482-High Court stayed further proceedings-Held : Inherent power not 
be invoked in matter covered by specific provisions of the Code-Expressions 
D "abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer 
unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court-Order of High Court at an uncalled 
for stage, illegal. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
"Abuse of the process of law" and "to secure the ends of justice"-
Meaning of-Jn the context of S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 197 3. 
The respondents-accused were convicted by the trial court for offences 
under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. 
The case was posted to the succeeding days for hearing on sentence. But as 
F the accused failed to appear, the trial court issued non-bailable warrants 
against ttrem. Instead of appearing before the trial court, the accused filed 
a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. before 
the High Court alleging misconduct of the trial judge. The High .Court 
stayed further proceedings including the operation of the non-bailable warrant 
G issued by the trial court. Being aggrieved the appellant-informant-injured 
witness filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is true that under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure 
H Code, 1973, the High Court has inherent powers to ma~e such orders as 
1060 
-
A.S. SHUKLAv. STATEOFU.P. 
1061 
may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent A 
the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 
But the expressions "abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends 
of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the 
alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be 
secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. B 
Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be 
used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code 
in cases were there is no express provision empowering the High Court to 
achieve the said object. It is well neigh settled that inherent power is not be 
invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code 
or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code. In the C 
present case, the High Court overlooked the procedural law, which empowered 
the convicted accused to prefer statutory appeal against the conviction of the 
offence. The High Court has intervened at an uncalled for stage and soft-
pedaled the course of justice at a very crucial stage of the trial.[1062-D-G] 
2. The order passed by the High Court entertaining the petition of the D 
convicted accused under Section 482 of the Code is, on the face of it, illegal 
erroneous and to say the least, unfortunate. It was known to the High Court 
that the trial court passed proceedings to the effect that final judgment and 
order convicting the accused were pronounced by the trial court. It was also 
recorded by the trial court that as the accused were absent, the court had E 
issued non-bailable warrants. In such a situation, instead of directing the 
accused to remain present before the Court for resorting to the steps 
contemplated by the law for passing the sentence, the High Court has stayed 
further proceedings including the operation of the non-bailable warrants 
, issued by the trial court. It is disquieting that High Court has overlooked 
, the important legal aspect that accused have a right of appeal against the F 
order of conviction purported to have been passed by the trial court. In such 
circumstances, the High Court ought not to have entertained a petition under 
Section 482 of the Code and stonewalled the very efficacious alternative 
remedy of appeal as provided in the Code. Merely because the accused made 
certain allegations against the trial judge the substantive law cannot be by G 
passed. [1064-E-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
680 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27. l .

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.