iminal Appeals Nos 121 and 122 of 1966
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 14 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos 120 and 123 of 1966 respectively
MK Ramamurthi R K Garg and section C Agarwala for the appellants in both the appeals
RGopalakrishnan and B R G K Achar for the respon dents in both the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMI J
The appellants Pampapathy and Shekarappa were tried in the Court of Sessions at Chitradurga for offences under sections 147 148 307 323 302 read with section 149 and section 325 read 478 with section 149 of the Indian Penal Co and convicted of all the offences other than under section 307 and section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code
The case of the prosecution was that the appellants along with others some of whom were dismissed workers of Devangiri Cotton Mills and Shri Ganeshar Textiles Mills and some of whom were office bearers and members of the Devangiri Cotton Mills Employees  Association and Shri Ganeshar Textiles Mills Workers Union conspired with the common object of committing murder and other offences with a view to strengthen their Associations and to weaken the rival Unions which had the sympathy of the Mill Managements
It was alleged that they intended to create fear in the mind of the Management of the Mills in order to gain their object of getting more bonus and get the dismissed workers reinstated
It was stated that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed themselves with deadly weapons and attacked the deceased Heggappa and other loyal workers on the night of March 19 1964 causing the death of Heggappa and injuries to 4 persons
The Sessions Judge by his judgment dated December 7 1964 convicted both the appellants for offences under sections 147 148 322 324 and 325 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code
The appellants preferred appeals to the Mysore High Court and on admission of the appeals they were directed to be released on bail
On March 7 1966 the State made two applications under sections 4982 and 561A Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the bail granted to the two appellants
In support of the two petitions an affidavit was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Devangiri Division Sri K Srinivasa Alwa stating that the two appellants were misusing their liberty ever since they were enlarged on bail by doing acts of violence creating trouble by instigating the labour unions of Devangiri Cotton Mills and Shankara Textile Mills to paralyse the smooth working of the Mills
It was alleged that they bad constituted themselves as ring leaders of the Employees  Association and were engaged in taking part in unlawful assemblies at different times and committed offences against the peaceful workers of the Mill
The appellants filed a counteraf fidavit denying that they were acting in a manner likely to cause breach of peace or endanger the lives of the workers
On March 14 1966 the Mysore High Court allowed the applications of the State and ordered that the bail granted to the appellants should be cancelled and they should be rearrested and committed to jailcustody
These appeals are brought by special leave from the order of the Mysore High Court dated March 14 1966 in Criminal Petitions Nos 120 and 123 of 1966
The question of law arising for determination in these appeals is whether in the case of a person convicted of a bailable offence where bail has been granted to him under section 426 of the Criminal 479 Procedure Code it can be cancelled in a proper case by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under section 561A of the Crimitial Procedure Code It is necessary at the outset to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
Section 426 relates to the suspension of the sentence or order of the trial court pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail
The section reads as follows 426
1 Pending any appeal by a convicted person the Appellate Court may for reasons to be recorded by it in writing order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and also if he is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond
2The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of any appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto
2 A When any person other than a person con victed of a non bailable offence is sentenced to imprisonment by a Court and an appeal lies from that sentence the Court may if the convicted person satisfies the Court that he intends to present an appeal order that he be released on bail for a period sufficient in the opinion of the Court to enable him to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under sub section 1 and the sentence of imprisonment shall so long as he is so released on bail be deemed to be suspended
2 B Where a High Court is satisfied that convicted person has been granted spec ial leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any sentence which the High Court has imposed or maintained the High Court may if it so thinks fit order that pending the appeal the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and also if such person is in confinement that he be released on bail
3When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment or imprisonment for life the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced Section 496 deals with persons accused of bailable offences
It provides that when a person charged with the commission of a bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an I officer in charge of a police station or is brought before a court and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceedings before such court to give bail 480 such person shall be released on bail
Section 497 deals with the question of granting bail in the case of non bailable offences
It reads as follows 497
1 When any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court he may be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life  Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail
2if it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation inquiry or trial as the case may be that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non bailable offence but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry
into his guilt the accused shall pending such inquiry be released on bail or at the discretion of such officer or Court on the execution by him of a bond with out sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided
3 3 A 4 5A High Court or Court of Session and in the case of a person released by itself any other Court may cause any person who has been released under this section to be arrested and may commit him to custody Section 4981 confers on the High Court or the Court of Session power to direct admission to bail or reduction of bail in all cases where bail is admissible under sections 496 and 497 whether in such cases there be an appeal against conviction or not
Sub section 2 of section 498 empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub section
1 to be arrested and committed to custody
Section 561A was added to the Code in 1923 and it reads as follows 561 A Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
 481 It was argued by Mr Ramamurthy on behalf of the appellants that after the High Court had once made an order suspending the sentence and granting bail to the appellants under section 426 Criminal Procedure Code it had no power to cancel that order subsequently and recommit the appellants to jail custody
It was submitted that there was no express power granted to the appellate court to cancel its order regarding the suspension of sentence pending the appeal and the order of release of the appellants on bail
It was pointed out that under section 4975 the legislature has specifically conferred power on specified courts to cancel the bail granted to a person accused of a non bailable offence
It was also pointed out by learned Counsel that under section 4982 the legislature has conferred power on the High Court and the Court of Session to cancel the bail granted to an accused person under section 4981 and ordering him to be arrested and committed to jailcustody
The argument put forward on behalf of the appellants is that if the legislature intended to confer such a power on the appellate court under section 426 it would have been very easy for it to add an appropriate sub section and make an express provision for such a power
The omission to make such an express provision is according to Mr Ramamurthy not a result of inadvertence but it is deliberate and if that is so it will not be permissible to take recourse to the provisions of section 561A to clothe the appellate court with power to cancel the bail in a case falling under section 426 Criminal Procedure Code
It was argued by Mr Ramamurthy that even if the appellants committed acts of violence during the period they were enlarged on bail and repeated the very offence for which they had been convicted the bail bond could not be cancelled but the further conduct of the accused may justify another prosecution tinder the Indian Penal Code and that it would not justify the rearrest of the appellants
In our opinion there is no justification for the argument put for ward on behalf of the appellants
It is true that in section 498 and sections 4975 and 498 the legislature has made express provision for the cancellation of a bail bond in the case of accused persons released on bail during the course of the trial but no such express provision has been made by the legislature in the case of a con
evicted person whose sentence has been suspended under section 426 and there has been an order of release of the appellant on bail
There is obviously a lacuna but the omission of the legislature to make a specific provision in that behalf is clearly due to oversight or inadvertence and cannot be regarded as deliberate
If the contention of the appellants is sound it will lead to fantastic results
The argument is that once an order of suspension of sentence is made under section 426 by the appellate court and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail
the subsequent conduct of the appellant
howsoever reprehensible it may be
cannot justify the appellate court in revoking the order of bail and ordering the rearrest of the appellant
The appellant may commit further acts of violence  he may perpetrate once again the very same offences 482 for which he has been convicted he may even threaten and criminally intimidate the prosecution counsel who may be in charge of the case in the appellate court 
he may attempt to abscond to a foreign country to escape the trial or he may commit acts of violence in revenge against the police and prosecution witnesses who have deposed against him in the trial court but the appellate court will have no power to cancel the suspension of sentence and the order of bail made under section 426
Criminal Procedure Code
Such a situation could not have been in the contemplation of the legislature and in our opinion the omission to make an express provision in that behalf is manifestly due to oversight or inadvertence
In a situation of this description the High Court is not helpless and in a proper case it may take recourse to the inherent power conferred upon it under section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code
The inherent power of the High Court mentioned in section 561A
Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised only for either of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the section
The inherent power cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code
It cannot also be invoked if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code
It is only if the matter in question is not covered by any specific provisions of the Code that section 561A can come into operation
No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that can possibly arise and it is an established principle that the Courts should have inherent powers apart from the express provision of law which are necessary to their existence and for the proper discharge of the duties imposed upon them by law
This doctrine finds expression in section 561A which does not confer any new powers on the High Court but merely recognises and preserves the inherent powers previously possessed by it
We are therefore of the opinion that in a proper case the High Court has inherent power under section 561 A Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the order of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant made under section 426
Criminal Procedure Code and to order that the appellant be rearrested and committed to jail custody
We should like to add that even before section 4982 was enacted there was a consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view that if the accused person is released on bail under section 4981 his bail bond could be cancelled and he could be ordered to be arrested and committed to custody under the provisions of section 561A of the Code Mirza Mohammad Ibrahim vs Emperor1
Seoti vs Rex1 Bachchu Lal vs State1 Munshi Singh vs State1 and The Crown Prosecutor Madras vs Krishnan1
These decisions proceed upon the view that the exercise of inherent power 1 ATR 1932 All534
2 AIR 1948 All366
3 A IR 1951 All836 5 ILR 4 AIR 1962 All
39 483 to cancel bail under section 561A was not regarded as inconsistent with the provisions of section 4981 of the Code
It is true that all these decisions referred to cases of persons charged with non bailable offences but it is significant that the provisions of section 4975 did not apply to these cases and the appropriate orders were passed under the purported exercise of the inherent power under section 561A
In the course of argument Mr Ramamurthy strongly relied upon the decision of the Judicial Committee in Lala Jairam Das vs King Emperor1
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the High Court has no power to grant bail to a convicted person under section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the provisions of section 4982 cannot be invoked to the present case
This argument is undoubtedly correct and is supported by the decision of the Judicial Committee
It was further contended by Mr Ramamurthy on the basis of this decision that Ch
XXXIX of the Code together with section 426 was intended to contain a complete and exhaustive statement of the powers of a High Court to grant bail and excludes the existence of any additional inherent power in a High Court relating to the subject of bail
But the actual decision of the Judicial Committee has no application to the facts of the present case
The question before the Judicial Committee was whether the Code of Criminal Procedure confers any power on a High Court in India to grant bail to a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and to whom the Judicial Committee has given special leave to appeal against his conviction or sentence
It was held by the Judicial Committee that the High Courts had no such power under the Criminal Procedure Code and could not grant bail to a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and to whom the Judical Committee has given special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence
The question presented for determination in the present case namely whether inherent power of the High Court could be exercised for cancellation of bail was not the subject matter of consideration before the Judicial Committee and that question did not obviously arise in the case before them
The ratio decidendi of the decision of the Judicial Committee is therefore different and has no application to the present case
We accordingly reject the argument by Mr Ramamurthy on this aspect of the case
We pass on to consider the next contention of the appellants viz the case does not fall under section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code and that it is not a proper case in which the High Court should cancel bail even though it has power under section 561A to do so
We are unable to accept the argument of Mr Ramamurthy as correct
An affidavit was filed before the High Court on behalf of the State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Devangiri Division in which it was stated that the appellants were 172 IA 120
484 misusing the liberty granted to them ever since they had been enlarged on bail by committing acts of violence creating trouble by instigating the labour unions of Devanagiri Cotton Mills and other mills in Devanagiri with a view to paralyse the smooth working of the Mills
It was also alleged that the appellants had constituted themselves as ring leaders of the Employees  Association and were taking part in unlawful assemblies at different times and had committed offences against the peaceful workers of the Mill
OnDecember 31 1965 Crime No 360 of 1965 was registeredagainst the appellants for commission of the offencesunder sections 143 448 and 324 Indian Penal Code
On February 11 1966 Crime No 53 of 1966 was registeredin which one of the appellants was alleged to have committed offences under sections 341 and 323 Indian Penal Code
On February 12 1966 yet another Crime No 54 of 1966 was re gistered against the appellants for the commission of the offence under sections 143 147 341 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code
The allegation against the appellants therefore was that they were misusing the liberty granted to them by the appellate court and were indulging in acts of violence
It is true that counter affidavits were filed by the appellants denying the allegations made by the State but the High Court apparently took the view that the allegations against the appellants on behalf of the State were well founded and the bail granted to them by the High Court should be cancelled
In our opinion the allegations made against the appellants would prima facie indicate abuse of the process of the Court and the provisions of section 561A are attracted to the case and the High Court was entitled to cancel the bail of the appellants under the provisions of that section
In our opinion Mr Ramamurthy has failed to make good his submission on this aspect of the case
For these reasons we hold that there is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants were released on bail by the High Court under section 426 Cr
PC pending disposal of their appeal in the High Court
On an application by the State that the appellants were misusing their liberty and committing acts of violence the bail was cancelled by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 561 A Cr P Code
On the question whether the High Court had such power HELD The inherent power of the High Court under section 561 A Ct
PC can be exercised either for giving effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of a court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but such power cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by a specific provision or inconsistent with any specific provision of the Criminal Procedure Code
Under sections 497 and 498 Cr
PC the Legislature has made express provision for the cancellation of bail in certain cases but there is no express provision when an appellant is released on bail under s 426 Cr
The omission must be due to inadvertence and cannot be regarded as deliberate otherwise the subsequent conduct of the appellant however reprehensible it may be will not justify the High Court in canceling the order of bail
Since the allegations against the appellant prima facie indicate abuse of the Process of the Court section 561 A is attracted to the case and the High Court was entitled to cancel the bail
481 F H 482 D F Lala Jairam Das vs King Emperor LR 72 IA 120 explained