RAJ KAPOOR AND ORS. versus STATE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 26-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
RAJ KAPOOR AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE AND OTHERS 
October 26, 1979 
1081 
-. ,7· -
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER & R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J 
Inherent powers vis-a-vis revisional powers of the High Court, nature of-
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 482 and 397. 
Cinen1atograph Act 1952 Section 5A-Whether the issuance of the certificate 
i,ssued by the specialised Board of Film Censors bars the criniinal Court's juris-
A 
B 
dictio11 to try for offences under Sections 292/293 l.P.C. 
C 
Pursuant to the complaint filed by the second respondent against the appel-
lants Und'er sections '2927293 read with section 34 of the Penal Code 1'9r alleged 
punitive prurience moral depravity and shocking erosion of public dei::ency of 
the film Satya1n, Shivam, Sundaram, the Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the 
statement of three witnesses, including the con1plainant, in· a preliminary inquiry 
under sectiori 200 of lhe Code of Criminal Procedure and holding th.at a 
D 
prima facie c-ase existed for summoning the appellants, made an Order direct~ 
issue qf summons for th~ir Ette·ndance. 
The appellants 
applied 
against the 
ord~r to the. High Court of .Delhi under section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, but the High CoU:rt, b'eing of opinion that a revision petition lay 
3.gainst that order, decided to entertain it under section 397 of' the Code. 
As 
th~ certified copy of the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate wae not filed 
along with the petition, it v1as rejected by the ;High Court on August 3, 1979, 
E · 
as n.ot COJJ?.petent. 
Allowing the appeal by special leav'e the Court, 
l!ELD : 
(Per Iyer J.) 
Th~ opening words -0f Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure con-
tradict the contention wb.ether the inh'erent powers of the High Court under 
Section 482 stands repelled when ihe revisional power under seclion 397 over-
laps because nothing iri the Code, not even section 397 can affect the amplitude 
of tl:ie inherent power preserved in so many terms by the language of S~ction 
482. 
S,tiH,......a general principle pervades this branch of Jaw wh'en a specific 
1 
prov?(t'On is made; 
easy resort to inherent, power is not right except under 
~pelling circun1stan.ces. 
Not that there is absence of jurisdiction but thitt 
~inheren,t po"'er ::;bo.~Jld, not inv~,de a.re:as, set apart for specific power under the 
·same. ~ode. · [1085 G-H, 1086AJ 
· 
While it is true that Section 482 is pervasive, it should not subvert legal 
inte1dfts \Vritten into the.sitme code, such for instance, in seCtion 397(2). In 
short; there iS no total ban on the exercise of inherent power wh'ere abuse of 
the process Of the Court or· other extracirdinary· situation excites the Court's 
juris?ictio~. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more. 
(1086 A-B, G] 
F 
G 
H 
A 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
The policy of law is clear that interlocutory order.i, pure and simple, should 
~
not be taken upto the High Court resulting in unneceoiary litigation and delay. 
At the other extreme, final orders are clearly capable of being considered in 
_exercise of inherent powers, if glaring injustice stares the Court in the face. 
In between there is a tertium quid where it is more than a purely interlocutory 
orde1 and less than .a final disposal. The present case falls under that category 
where the accused complain of harassment . through the Court's process. -itt1:. .. ~ 
this third catel!Ory (tertium quid) the inherent power can be exercised. (10860-H. 
~
1087A] 
. 
Merely because a copy of the . order has not been produced despite its 
1
presence in the records of the Court, it cannot be said that .the entire revisory 
power stands frustrated and the inherent poWllr stultified. [10870-EJ 
When the order in original is before the Court, to dismiss the petition for 
non production of a copy of it is to bring the judicial process into pejoration 
and if a copy were so- sacred that the original Were no substitute for it some 
time could have been granted for its production which was not done. In law, 
.. in life a short cut may prove a wrong cut. The content of the power so 
far as the present situation is ooncemed is the same, be it under section 397 
or section 482 Of the Code. [1087E-GJ 
Madhu Limaye v. 
State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1978 SC 47 at SI; 
followed. 
The Film Censor Board acting: under section SA of the Cinematograph Act. 
1952, is specially entrusted to screen off the •ilver ocreen pictures which offen-
siv

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