STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus GOLOCONDA LINGA SWAMY AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 27-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
V. 
GOLOCONDA UNGA SWAMY AND ANR. 
JULY 27, 2004 
(S.N. VARIAVA AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal procedure, 1973; Section 482/Andhra Pradesh 
Excise Act, 1968/Andhra Pradesh Prohibitibn Act, 1995 : 
A 
B 
Allegations of transporting/storing black jaggery/molasses to manu-
facture illicit liquor-Petition for quashing first information report- C 
Allowing by High Court-On appeal, Held: Exercise of power under 
Section 482 of the Code is an exception and not the rule-High Court could 
look into the materials/evidence to find out whether any offence has been 
made out or not-However, Courts should be circumspect and judicious 
in exercising the discretion. 
D 
Legal Maxims: 
Maxim 'quando lex aliquid alique concedit, concediture et id sine quo 
res ipsa esse non palest' and 'ex debito justitiae '-Meaning and applica-
bility of 
E 
Prohibition and Excise Officers, Excise Department of the State 
of Andhra Pradesh filed FIR againt accused persons/respondents 
alleging commission of offence/offences under the provisions of Andhra 
Pradesh Excise Act and Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. It was F 
alleged that the accused were either transporting or storing black 
jaggery/molasses for the purpose of manufacture of illicit liquor. 
Accused filed petitions for quashing of FIR which was allowed by the 
High Court. Hence the appeals by the State. 
It was contended by the State that since adequacy of the material G 
in existence/which could have been collected during investigation and 
their relevance to the offences allegedly committed by the accused are 
essentially a matter of trial, the High Court was not justified in 
quashing the FIR; and that exercise of power under Section 482 
Cr.P.C. is clearly indefensible. 
H 
147 
148 
SUPRH.1E COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case 
is an exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new 
powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the 
B Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages the 
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. 
It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which 
c 
would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative 
enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may 
possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from 
express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of 
functions and duties imposed upon them by law. (151-G-H; 152-A) 
1.2. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence 
of any express provision as inherent in their constitution, all such 
D powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course 
of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique 
concedil, conceditur el id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law 
gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). 
Whele exercising powers under section 482 Crl. P.C., the Court does 
E not function as a Court of appeal or revision. However, inherent 
jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised spar-
ingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is 
justified by the test specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to 
be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the 
F administration of which alone Courts exist. Authority of the Court 
exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse 
that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to 
G 
prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to 
allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion 
of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash 
any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts 
to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would 
otherwise serve the ends of justice. (152-B-C-D-E-Fl 
l.3. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may 
H examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be 
STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. G.L. SW AMY 
149 
quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the A 
complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if 
the allegations are accepted in toto. It is importa

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