TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secure the ends of justice. As per Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary ( 1992 (8) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT ) the High Court, as the highest Court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State, has inherent powers to make any order for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, it being an extraordinary power, will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate Court of its powers. The Petitioner has not been able to make out a case or to show that the order passed by the ACMM was abuse of the process of the Court or that the order is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice. Petitioner (DRI) ought to have supplied the Respondents with the copies of the documents promptly so that the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned A.C.M.M. opined that since no effective hearing would be possible without the copies of the documents being made available to the Respondents, a direction was issued to the Petitioner to supply the documents. 3. Unfortunately, although according to the Petitioner it was a serious case of evasion of Customs Duty to the tune of over Rs.5 crores, yet instead of supplying the copies of the documents in the Court of the learned A.C.M.M., the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20.01.2010 on the technical ground that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obligates a complainant, in a case instituted otherwise on a police report, to supply the copies of the documents. 4. It is urged by Mr. Satish Aggarw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... police officer the documents filed with the complaint are not required to be supplied to an accused. 6. It is important to note that the instant complaint by the DRI for offences punishable under Sections 132/135(1)(a) of the Act was preferred against the Respondents on 28.07.2007. As stated earlier, the amount of customs duty alleged to be evaded was over Rs. 5 crores. Learned ACMM took cognizance and ordered for issuance of process. Copies of the Complaint etc. were directed to be delivered to the Respondents on 03.12.2007. Thereafter, the evidence of the witnesses of the Complainant (DRI) was not recorded because either the witnesses were not present or for administrative reasons. It was on 20.01.2010 that a request was made on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to secure the ends of justice. The powers under the section, though wide, have to be exercised sparingly, carefully with caution and only when such exercise is justified. 11. In Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 570 the Supreme Court held that:- 6. Section 482 does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the section. As lacunae are sometimes found in procedural law, the section has been embodied to cover such lacunae wherever they are discovered. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases. 12. In Janata Dal v. H. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
