KAILASH VERMA versus PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 18-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KAILASH VERMA 
v. 
PUNJAB ST ATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND ANR. 
JANUARY 18, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 406 and 428/Code of Criminu! Procedure, 1973; 
Ss. 397(1) and (3) and 482: 
A 
B 
Second Revision Petition-Maintainability of-Held: Since revision is C 
prohibited under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant could not be 
allowed to take recourse to revision before High Court under Section 397(1) 
of the Code-However, High Court could entertain such petition under Section 
482 of the Code to prevent miscarriage of justice/abuse of the process of the 
Court-Since no such grounds exist, High Court was not justified in exercising D 
its inherent powers in entertaining second revision petition. 
Appellant and another person were partners in a firm, a rice mill. 
There was an agreement between the firm and the respondent-Corporation 
for dehusking paddy. The Corporation complained that several tons of 
paddy/rice was outstanding against the firm in breach of the contract. A E 
case was registered against the firm. The appellant filed a petition for 
discharge on the ground that he was a sleeping partner in the firm. He 
was discharged by the Trial Court. Respondent-Corporation challenged 
the order by filing a Revision Petition before the Court of Sessions and it 
dismissed the same on the ground that the Corporation had already 
initiated arbitration proceedings nnd filed a complaint against the firm. 
Aggrieved, the Corporation filed another Revision Petition before the High 
Court. Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the Trial 
Court as affirmed by the Court of Sessions. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
It was contended by the appellant that in view of Section 397(3) 
Cr.P.C., the Second Revision Petition filed by the respondent-Corporation G 
before the High Court was not maintainable. 
Respondent-Corporation submitted that the High Court, in exercise 
of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., could entertain 
second Revision Petition if there was miscarriage of justice. 
527 
H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l.l. Ordinarily, when a Revision has been barred under 
Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed 
to take recourse to Revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) 
Cr.P.C. as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, High 
B Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is 
serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of the Court or when 
mandatory provisions of law were not complied with and when the High 
Court is of the view that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to 
correct the mistake committed by the Revisional Court. (531-C-D) 
c 
State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @Afthan Guru 
and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 641, relied on. 
Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni and Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 241; V.C. 
Shukla v. State through CBI, (1980) Supp. SCC 92 and Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, 
D (1999) 6 sec 326, referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, the appellant was discharged by the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court confirmed that order after 
elaborately considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The 
respondent-Corporation had also initiated steps for arbitration 
E proceedings on the basis of the arbitration clause in the agreement. Thus, 
the High Court was not justified in exercising its inherent power under 
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this case. It cannot be either said that there was 
miscarriage of justice warranting interference by the High Court. 
(531-H; 532-A-B-C( 
F 
Bal Kishan Das v. P.C. Nayar, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 412, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 117-
118 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.2002 of the Punjab High 
G Court and Haryana High Court in Cr!. Misc. Nos. 50933-M and 530934-M 
of 2001. 
Nidhesh Gupta, Naveen Singh and Ms. S Janani for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Jayashreewad, Ashish Wad, Mrs. Yugandhara Jha, Anshu Bhanot 
H 
+ 
KAILASH VERMA,,, PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN, [BALAKRISHNAN ,lj 529 
for M/s, J,S, Wad & Co,, for the Respondents. 
A 
f 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted. 
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the learned Single B 
Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Brief facts of the case are 
thus. 
A cr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.