Judgment :- 1. In CC 35 of 1984 the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadungalloor acquitted the second respondent of offences punishable under S.279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 31-5-1985 basing on the decision in David v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT 849) and identical decisions of some other High Courts on the ground that the investigating agency violated the provisions of S.167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. pw.2 one of the injured, filed this petition under S.482 of the Code, praying that the order of acquittal may be quashed and trial directed to be proceeded with. 2. It is true that the decision in David's case (1984 KLT 849) was later overruled by a Division Bench decision in Balakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala and others (1986 KLT 485). As the law now stands according to the interpretation of S.167(5) in that decision the acquittal ordered by the Magistrate is evidently wrong. But when the Magistrate decided the case and when pw.2 filed this petition the decision in David's case held the field and according to the interpretation of S.167(5) as it then stood, the decision was correct. State has not chosen to file an appeal against the acquittal and pw.2 has not chosen to challenge the acquittal in revision, even though such remedies were available. The decision has thus become final and conclusive. 3. An acquittal or a conviction could be normally challenged only by any one of the methods provided under the Code. Without resorting to those provisions S.482 of the Code cannot be invoked for challenging judicial pronouncements. Inherent powers could be invoked only for giving effect to orders or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice when no other provision is available. It is not a substitute for appeal or revision and it is not intended to be invoked when the decision could be challenged by appeal, revision or other methods allowed by law. Pendency of a proceeding under S.482 without resorting to appeal or revision, when those remedies are available, will not have the effect of saving finality of judicial pronouncements. 4. Pendency of a proceeding under S.482 without resorting to appeal or revision, when those remedies are available, will not have the effect of saving finality of judicial pronouncements. 4. When an acquittal or conviction is challenged in appeal or revision, any change of law by interpretation in judicial pronouncements or otherwise may be liable to be taken into account in granting reliefs in the pending appeal or revision. That is only because appeal or revision is a continuation of the proceedings before the trial court and the case could be taken as finally disposed of only when it is decided by the highest court before which it could be taken in the regular course according to the available provisions and further because subsequent events also could be taken into account in appropriate cases in moulding reliefs. In this case if an appeal or revision from the acquittal was pending the decision in 1986 KLT 485 could have been taken into account in considering the correctness of the acquittal. That is because, as I have earlier stated, the acquittal would have become final in such a contingency only subject to the result of the appeal or revision. 5. A proceeding under S.482 is not a normal remedy and it is not intended to be resorted to in the normal course. Such a proceeding is not a continuation of the trial. It is an independent proceeding unconnected with the trial of the case and intended only for the purpose of remedying an illegality and consequent failure of justice when no other alternate remedy is available according to the existing provisions. A decision which has become final and conclusive on account of failure or omission to challenge the same in appeal or revision cannot be reopened in a proceeding under S.482 on the ground that a subsequent judicial interpretation had the effect of changing the law as understood or interpreted earlier. If a contrary view is taken there could never be any finality to judicial pronouncements and the very purpose of prescribing periods of limitation for filing appeals or revisions will be defeated resulting in vested rights being liable to be toppled every moment the law is changed. That is not the object and purpose of legal provisions. 6. If a contrary view is taken there could never be any finality to judicial pronouncements and the very purpose of prescribing periods of limitation for filing appeals or revisions will be defeated resulting in vested rights being liable to be toppled every moment the law is changed. That is not the object and purpose of legal provisions. 6. In this case when the Magistrate acquitted the accused that decision was correct according to the law as interpreted then and there was no illegality or failure of justice. Even if there was illegality or failure of justice it had to be remedied according to the available provisions. A court can decide rightly or wrongly. Even a wrong decision by a competent court will be binding on the parties unless it is challenged in time according to the available provisions. Rights will flow from such decisions also. Inherent powers cannot be invoked ignoring the appellate or revisional remedies. It naturally follows that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs. The petition is dismissed.