1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.48/2007 Shri Prakash Vernekar, major, married, businessman, s/o. Balkrishna Vernekar, r/o. Bicholim, Goa. .......... Petitioner. V/s. 1. State of Goa, through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Altinho, Goa. 2. Mrs. Stella D'Souza, major, r/o. Altinho Apartments, E-Block, Altinho, Mapusa, Goa. ......... Respondents. Mr. N.A. Nagvekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATE : 11th January, 2008. P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 1. The petitioner has invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking modification of the order dated 14.6.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision Application 2 No.11/2007, to the extent it confirms the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, dated 27.10.06, in Criminal Appeal No.96/2005 by which he has maintained the order of the trial Court dated 1.7.05 in Criminal Case No.205/1996, releasing the muddemal articles 7 to 14 in favour of the complainant. 2. The petitioner and the complainant both filed applications for return of the gold bars which were attached during investigation of the offence of theft in the house of the respondent-complainant. The Criminal Case No.205/1996, ultimately, ended in conviction of the accused. Both the Courts below, thereafter, passed orders disposing of the application filed by the petitioner and the complainant, releasing the MOs. 7 to 14 in favour of the complainant, which orders were impugned in a revision before this Court. This Court, in the revision, being Criminal Revision Application No.11/2007, wherein the order dated 27.10.06 passed by the Sessions Court directing the return of the gold pieces of different weights, seized from the possession of the petitioner, to be returned to the complainant/respondent No.2, after hearing the parties at length, rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the revision application, with costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the complainant/respondent No.2. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the 3 Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and another, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 571 for challenging the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge which, according to him, could be corrected by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the High Court under Section 482 has inherent jurisdiction to set aside and/or suitably modify the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in revision as there was miscarriage of justice. 4. At the outset, the reliance placed upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court is misplaced. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is available to set aside the order/s passed by subordinate courts where there is serious miscarriage of justice and the abuse of the process of the Court or where mandatory provisions of law are not complied with and where this Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court. This provision cannot be invoked for challenging an order of the co-ordinate bench of this Court and/or for correcting the mistake, if any, committed while passing the order. The only remedy that could be open to the petitioner seeking appropriate relief is to knock the doors of the Supreme Court against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, passed in the criminal revision application. 4 5. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. D.B. BHOSALE, J. ssm.