1. The petitioner, Partap singh, upon having been tried for the offence under S. 307, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 17-S/7 of 1992/89 by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), exercising the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, came to be convicted for the offence under S. 324, Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 23-3-1993. Upon such conviction, the learned trial Court instead of imposing any sentence upon the petitioner granted him the benefit of S. 4, Probation of Offenders Act and ordered his release on probation for a period of one year on his executing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety to the like amount and during the period of such probation he was directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour.

2. The allegations against the petitioner vide FIR No. 197/89 Police Station Sadar, Shimla were that on 1-9-1989 at about 5.30 p.m at the Mall, Shimla, he had attacked Shri A.N Sharma, the then Superintendent of Police (Enforcement) with a dagger in an attempt to commit his murder. As a result of such attack Shri A.N Sharma had sustained an injury in the form of an incised wound in the right infrascapular region 10 cms. from mid line, 9th intercostal space with clean cut parallel edges, elliptical shape, skin deep.

3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by his conviction for the offence under S. 324, Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23-3-1993, preferred an appeal, being Cr. A. No. 62 of 1993 assailing his conviction. Such appeal, however, was not pressed by the petitioner and the same was accordingly dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 29-8-1997.

4. It appears that while on probation, the petitioner on 24-5-1993 at about 7.30 p.m at the Mall, Shimla, assaulted Shri M.S Mandyal, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge with a knife in an attempt to murder him. A case for the offence under Ss. 307, 353 and 506, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, vide FIR No. 172 of 1993 on 24-5-1993.

5. On 27-5-1993, an application was made on behalf of the State by the learned Public Prosecutor, under S. 9, Probation of Offenders Act for cancellation of the probation granted to the petitioner and for imposing sentence upon him for the offence under S. 324, Indian Penal Code, for which offence he stood convicted vide judgment dated 23-3-1993. It was pleaded that the petitioner during the continuance of his probation period had committed the offence under Ss. 307, 353 and 506, Indian Penal Code and as such had failed to observe the conditions of the bond entered into by him.

6. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his probation be not cancelled and he be not imposed the punishment for the offence under S. 324, Indian Penal Code, for which offence he stood convicted vide judgment dated 23-3-1993. Cause was shown by the petitioner. In his reply to the show cause notice, he admitted that a case for the offences under Ss. 307, 353 and 506, Indian Penal Code, stood registered against him on 24-5-1993 vide FIR No. 172 of 1993 at Police Station Sadar. He however, pleaded that the case against him was false and frivolous and that he was falsely implicated in the case for ulterior motives. He further pleaded that in fact he was assaulted, beaten and got arrested by the complainant and other persons. He, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the application made by the State under S. 9, Probation of Offenders Act, and for continuance of his probation.

7. The application made by the State was inquired into by the learned trial Court. The parties were afforded due opportunities to lead evidence. Both oral as well as documentary evidence was led by the parties. The petitioner was provided legal aid by appointing a counsel at State expenses for him.

8. The evidence brought on record against the petitioner shows that during the subsistence of probation period of one year, he was involved in two cases, one for the offence under S. 307, Indian Penal Code, vide FIR No. 422 of 1993 dated 4-11-1993, Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, for having assaulted one Pradeep Singh with a knife in attempt to murder him, and the second for the offences under Ss. 307, 353 and 506, Indian Penal Code, vide FIR No. 172 of 1993 dated 24-5-1993, Police Station Sadar, Shimla, for having made an attempt to com mit the murder of Shri M.S Mandyal, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge.

9. Evidence further revealed that in the first case, the petitioner upon having been tried for the offence under S. 307, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 4-S/7 of 1994, was convicted for the offence under S. 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- on 25/27-5-1995.

10. In the second case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under S. 323, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 49- S/7 of 1993 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- vide judgment dated 25/27-5-1995.

11. It may be noticed that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in the above referred to second case stands affirmed in appeal by this Court on 27-11-2001.

12. The petitioner while appearing as his own witness during the course of inquiry admitted the registration of the cases against him. He also admitted that he stood convicted and sentenced in such cases. He, however, pleaded false implication.

13. On consideration of the material placed before it, the learned trial court vide its order dated 21-1-1999 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to ob serve the terms and conditions of the bond by indulging in the commission of the of fence during the subsistence of the probation, after recalling the order releasing the petitioner on probation and upon hearing him on the question of sentence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The period of detention of the petitioner in judicial/police custody was ordered to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him in accordance with the pro visions contained in S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

14. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21-1-1999 of the learned trial Court, the petitioner assailed the same by way of an appeal, being Cr. Appeal No. 297 of 1999, before this Court. Such appeal was dis missed as not maintainable vide judgment dated 15-3-2000. The petitioner went up further in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being Cr. Appeal No. 729 of 2001. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 6-8-2002: (2002 (6) JT (SC) 441) allowed the appeal and after setting aside the order dated 15-3-2000 of this Court to hear the case afresh after treating the appeal filed by the appellant as a petition under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:

“In our opinion, an accused against whom an order under S. 9 of the Probation of Offenders Act had been passed cannot be left without a judicial remedy. Assuming for the sake of argument that an appeal was not maintainable, the High Court ought and could have regarded the appeal which was filed as being a petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C and should have decided the case on merits. The said provision is meant for situations like the present one. In the alternative, a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India would always be filed and entertained. As long as a remedy is available to the accused, it matters little as to the nomenclature attached to it. The High Court in the present case should have regarded the appeal which was filed against the order under S. 9 of the Probation of Offender Act as a petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C and decided it according to law. As this has not been done, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the High Court to hear the case afresh by treating the appeal filed by the appellant as a petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C”

15. On remand, the matter came to be registered as a petition under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

17. It is by now well settled that the power under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised very sparingly to render real and substantial justice to the parties. It is not fair on the part of the High Court to interfere with judicial exercise of the discretion vested in the lower Courts on the mere allegations of the accused. The in herent powers under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, can be exercised by this Court under the following three circum stances, namely:—

(i) Where the jurisdiction is invoked to give effect to an order of the Court;

(ii) If there has been an abuse of the process of the Court; and

(iii) In order to secure the ends of justice.

18. Under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, a party gets no vested right or in herent right to seek interference. In exercise of that jurisdiction, the Court itself steps in only to meet the contingencies therein catalogued. The principles governing the exercise of inherent powers are:—

(a) The High Court possesses the inherent powers to be exercised Ex debito justitiae to do the real and substantial justice. Such powers, however, do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

(b) Such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;

(c) Such powers are not be resorted to if there is specific provisions in the Code for redress of grievance of the aggrieved party; and

(d) Such powers are not to be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

19. It is equally well settled that the powers under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, are distinct from the appellate or revisional powers of the Court and in the exercise of such powers the High Court cannot make a reappraisal of evidence and to come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the Court below, unless there are compelling circumstances choking the conscience of the Court.

20. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that during the subsistence of the probation he was involved in two cases for the offence under S. 307, Indian Penal Code, though subsequently he was convicted and sentenced only for the offences under Ss. 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code. In view of such admitted facts, the learned trial Court has rightly found that the petitioner had failed to observe and abide by the terms and conditions of the bond. The order releasing him on probation was, therefore, rightly recalled and sentence imposed upon him for the offence for which he stood convicted.

21. There is no dispute that the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Therefore, it is not a case of exercise of such jurisdiction by the learned trial Court which it did not possess. Nothing has come on the record to show that the jurisdiction has been exercised by the Court below in a wrong or arbitrary manner. Due opportunity, as required by law, was given to the petitioner to show cause before the passing of the impugned order. Nor there is anything to show that there has been an abuse of any process of the Court.

22. It is also pertinent to note that not only the sentence imposed on the petitioner vide the impugned order stood served out by him, on a petition having been made by the petitioner, being Cr. M.M.O No. 33 of 2002 the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him in this case was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon him in Sessions Trial No. 5-S/7 of 1998 by a Division Bench of this Court.

23. On the facts and circumstances of case, it is not a fit case for the exercise of inherent powers under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for interfering with the impugned order dated 21-1-1999 of the learned trial Court. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent to the petitioner for information through the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan.

25. Petition dismissed.