Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— Ss. 482, 374(2), 386 and 397 — While exercising appellate jurisdiction, High Court, in suo motu exercise of its inherent power, can direct further investigation of the case against persons who were not charge-sheeted and were not accused at the stage of trial but whom High Court felt should have been included in the challan — But High Court should exercise the inherent jurisdiction sparingly and only after applying its mind to the material on record so as to be satisfied about existence of a strong prima facie case against such persons and also whether any useful purpose is served by issuing such directions particularly after a long lapse of time — Moreover, having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, High Court should also give an opportunity of hearing to those persons before issuing the directions — But High Court cannot direct the State to take advice of Public Prosecutor as regards the provisions whereunder those persons had to be charged, nor can it direct CB/CID to reinvestigate and prosecute those persons since it cannot direct to reinvestigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency, (2006) 7 SCC 296-A

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— Ss. 482 and 483 — Inherent jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — When can be exercised — High Court acts ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice — Limitations — Apart from inherent jurisdiction, High Court can also exercise supervisory jurisdiction in some cases under S. 483 and also under Art. 227, (2006) 7 SCC 296-B

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— Ss. 482, 374(2), 386 and 397 — High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice — It can do so while exercising other jurisdiction such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction — No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction necessary — Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters — It can be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings, (2006) 7 SCC 296-C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— S. 482 — High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may, in certain cases, pass adverse remarks against investigator, prosecutor or judicial officer even though they may not be before it and may also later on direct expunction thereof suo motu or at the instance of the person aggrieved, (2006) 7 SCC 296-D

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— Nature — An exhaustive code — Provides complete and corrective machinery, (2006) 7 SCC 296-E

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— Ss. 190 and 193 — New Code provides for cognizance of an offence and committal of a case, as contradistinguished from cognizance of an offender or committal of an accused to Court of Session as was in the old Code, (2006) 7 SCC 296-F

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— Ss. 190, 173(2), 169, 200, 202 and 204 — Jurisdiction of Magistrate in respect of issuance of process or taking cognizance of offence — Conditions precedent to exercise of, (2006) 7 SCC 296-G

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

— S. 173(8) — Further investigation — When power under sub-section (8) is exercised Court should not ordinarily interfere therewith by directing that investigation be made from a particular angle or by a particular agency, (2006) 7 SCC 296-H