FAROOQ HASSAN, J.— These five criminal misc. petitions lend themselves support to dispose off by a common order, having been filed by three petitioners, namely Mahavir Prasad, Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain & Mohd. Nasir s/o Haji Abbas in different sets seeking relief for grant of bail and quashing criminal proceedings in cr. case No. 140/80 arising out of F.I.R. No. 7/89 of police station Karanpur. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that on 17th January, 1989 at about 9 P.M. the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, gave a written direction to the Assistant Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer), Sri Karanpur informing that near at about indo-Pak border village Bhutiwala 24-0, a large consignment of heroin apart from gold is likely to be smuggled in India. The police party is alleged to have accordingly made arrangements so as to keep strict reconnaissance on the border; and at about 11 P.M the Police parly laid by Dalpat Singh Dinkar Assistant Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer), Sri Karanpur accosted six persons near village Bhutiwala 24-0 coming from the canal side. These six persons are alleged to have been carrying packets with them. Incharge of one of the party, Shri Khinv Singh accosted them and challenged to stop, with the result, those persons tried to run away after throwing their packets. Four persons are said to have been trying to be successful so as to escape, yet* two persons were over-powered—one of them disclosed his name as Daljit Singh and other person named himself to be Hardayal Singh s/o Chanan Singh who subsequently is also transpired operated under the false name of Pradeep Kumar, On the personal search of Hardayal Singh alias Pradeep Kumar 15 packets of heroin and 125 gold biscuits were found on his person in a bag and bandolian; and similarly on Daljit Singhs search 10 packets of heroin and 125 gold biscuits were found on his person in the bag and bandolian. Four persons who ran away are alleged to have left three bags containing 15 packets each and one bag containing 13 packets of heroin. All these goods were, taken into possession. Then, F.I.R. No. 7/89 was chalked out. Four persons who ran away are alleged to have left three bags containing 15 packets each and one bag containing 13 packets of heroin. All these goods were, taken into possession. Then, F.I.R. No. 7/89 was chalked out. After arrest of the afore-named two persons, a message was sent by the Border Security Force and Rajasthan Police, Sri Karanpur to the Deputy Collector (Preventive), Jaipur who in his turn passed the information to the Narcotics Control Bureau Delhi Zonal Unit, to the effect that the B.S.F. & Rajasthan Police has seized 250 gold biscuits & 103 Kg of heroin at Sri Karanpur on 17.1.1989. 3. From the challan papers it also transpired that during questioning, Pradip Kumar stated that he was to deliver the heroin and gold to a person having telephone No. 7112286 in Delhi. After inquiry, it was found that the said telephone number was installed at B-F-8 Mohan Palace, Saraswati Vihar, Pritampura which was searched resulting in recovery of Indian Currency to the tune of Rs. 1,23,97,000/-. On further investigation it was revealed that Pradeep Kumars real name was Hardayal Singh who used to have one Maruti Car and two trucks, and who is alleged to have been smuggling heroin and gold for last two years. Further it was revealed that so far as the gold is concerned, Hardayal Singh was supplying the same to one Ashok Kumar having telephone No. 7112286, whereas the heroin is said to have been supplying by Hardayal Singh to a Pak national named Nasir living in Bombay at extended stay with one Indian Muslim named Baba, through his car and trucks. The three out of six parsons who are said to have run away from the site were found to be Sukhvinder Singh, Jasbir Singh & Raman Lamba. The residential premises of Ashvni Kumar and Vijay Kumar were also searched but nothing incriminating was found. In the report dated 22.1.1989, it is alleged that enquiries were also made about the resident of Ashok Kumar where the telephone No. 263925 is alleged to have been installed and it was found that the occupant of this telephone number is one Anil Kumar resident of 7/26 Dariya Ganj, New Delhi who was also subjected to search with nil recovery. Anil Kumar Agrawal is said to have been fitting in the physical description of Ashok Kumar who is the alleged person to whom the delivery of the seized gold and heroin was to be given. During the investigation, Rajendra & Anil sons of petitioner Mahavir Prasad were taken to Ranjit hotel at Delhi and investigation was made and it is alleged, these two persons (Anil & Rajendra) gave a similar voluntary statement. 4. During the search, on the person of Hardayal Singh, a slip was found on which two telephone numbers i.e. 263925 and 266951 are alleged to have been noted apart from mentioning of the word, patla on the slip. On the basis of this slip, Mahavir Prasad was arrested and is sought to be connected with various offences. 5. As per the challan papers, as a result of investigation, the prosecution has come out with a case that Hardayal Singh, on inquiry, gave a statement that telephone numbers were given to him by the persons who delivered him consignment i e. one Liyakat of Pakistan; and that heroin was to be delivered to Baba and Nasir. According to the challan papers, Mahavir Prasad is known as patla and he is said to have admitted that he deals in smuggled gold. The investigation is alleged to have further revealed that telephone No. 263925 is the residential number of Mahavir Prasad and 266951 is the shop telephone number of Mahavir Prasad and that heroin was to be delivered to Baba alias Ahsan Khan and Mohd. Nasir to Bombay. Ahsan Khan was interrogated and he admitted to have been dealing in illegal trafficking of the drugs and Mohd. Nasir is also said to have admitted that he was to receive 103 Kg. of heroin. 6. After usual investigation, the challan has been filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 3, 21, 23, 25 & 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as well as section 112 of the Customs Act, The case was fixed for passing the order of commitment, on 5.6.89 but the same has not yet been passed upto 12.7.89 Bail petitions of the petitioners have been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Hence these petitions. 7. 7. Before going into merits of the case, I would like to mention that after filing of the challan, the Magistrate before whom it was filed is yet to decide as to whether th case is to be committed in the Court of Sessions under Section 209, Cr.P.C, In case, the Magistrate so decides then the case is to be committed to the Court of Sessions and die Sessions Court to whom the case is to be committee), shall consider as to whether any charge is to be framed against the accused -petitioners or they are to be discharged under Section 227, Cr.P.C. In case the Sessions Court decides that the charge is to be framed then after framing of the charge, the Sessions Judge shall record the plea of the petitioners and in case the accused petitioners do rot plead guilty the?) the evidence of the prosecution is to be recorded and after concluding the trial and hearing the parties, the Sessions Judge may either acquit or convict the accused. 8. In view of the procedure laid down for trial of Sessions case, it is clear that the accused persons shall get atleast two chances, before the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge to plead that no case is made out against them and in the absence of any materia!, they should be discharged.. 9. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioners named above have challenged the accusation against the present petitioners which has been levelled by the prosecution by filings challan against them. 10. As per the challan papers and the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mohd Nasir s/o Haji Abbas, the evidence against him is of the confession of a co-accused, Baba which is said to have been taken under Section 108 of the Customs Act and wherein it has been stated that Mohd. Nasir was doing small job for them; and other evidence is of the statement of Nasir Afghani recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act; and third evidence is of certain accounts found at his residence which shows that of dealings in trafficking heroin. 11. Nasir was doing small job for them; and other evidence is of the statement of Nasir Afghani recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act; and third evidence is of certain accounts found at his residence which shows that of dealings in trafficking heroin. 11. Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Nasir Afghani contended that there is no legal/admissible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime because, so far as the statement of co-accused, Ahsan Ali alias Baba recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Sec. 108 of the Customs Act by the Authority is concerned, it is not admissible in evidence and that apart, confessional statements are hit by Section 25/26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Shri Bajwa then added that the stage to record the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act arises only when notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act has already been issued to the accused persons from whom further inquiry is to be made. Thus, taking the aid of the above contentions, Shri Bajwa vociforceiy urged that the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act as well as Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act do not constitute substantive piece of evidence as such, according to him, no cognizance for the alleged offence could and can be taken against the accused persons solely on the basis of such statements. 12. Similar situation is there in the evidence against Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain, of Amana w/o Ahsan in addition to his own statement and that of co-accused. Thus, similar objections with regard to the evidence against Mohd. Nasir (Pak national) have been raised by Shri M.M. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner, (Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain) and that apart, Shri Singhvi raised objection regarding admissibility of the confessional, statement. 13. Further, Shri Singhvi urged that mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, & 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with and in these circumstances, according to him, even the case against the principal accused is also not likely to succeed at all. Then Shri Singhvi added that so far as the statement of co-accused persons is concerned, under the provisions of the Customs Act, they are not admissible against the petitioners because they cannot be pressed into service by Section 30 of the Customs Act. 14. Then Shri Singhvi added that so far as the statement of co-accused persons is concerned, under the provisions of the Customs Act, they are not admissible against the petitioners because they cannot be pressed into service by Section 30 of the Customs Act. 14. The accusation against Mahavir Prasad (petitioner) is based on the following circumstances :— (1) that, a slip was recovered from the possession of Hardayal Singh; (2) that, in that slip, telephone numbers were found to have been written which are alleged to be of the residence and shop of the petitioner (Mahavir Pd). 15. Shri D.S. Shishodia, learned Advocate, appearing for Mahavir Prasad assailed the slip and its recovery on manifold reasons. Other evidence against Mahavir Prasad is of confession made by co-accused as well as Mahavir Prasad. Here, Shri Shishodia also raised objections with regard to the admissibility of the confessional statement of Mahavir Prasad and that of co-accused. According to him,, also, the statement of co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence. 16. Tout an contra ire, Shri S.S. Vyas learned Public Prosecutor urged that petitions under Sections 482, Cr.P.C. are not maintainable because the petitioners can raise objections which are being taken before this Court, before the subordinate court at the time when it considers the matter for committal under Section 209, Cr.P.C. And, that apart, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, such objections can also be raised before the Sessions Judge at the time when the charge is framed by him under Section 228, Cr.P.C. and the petitioners can get an order of their discharge under Section 227, Cr.P.C. if the Court satisfies and upholds their objections. 17. Taking the aid of the above submissions, learned Public Prosecutor vociforcely contended that alternative remedy is available to the petitioners and the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the present case. According to him, statement of the accused recorded by the Custom Authority are not at all hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 18. I have considered the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the cases cited at the Bar. 19. It is settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the High Court though are very wide and indefinable but the limits of such powers should be carefully guarded. 18. I have considered the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the cases cited at the Bar. 19. It is settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the High Court though are very wide and indefinable but the limits of such powers should be carefully guarded. Inherent power is recognised only to meet those cases for which no provision is made by the Code It follows therefore that where there are expressed provisions of law there is no inherent powers vested in the High Court to override them. In other words, where the legislature has provided for a particular mode of action or has vested an authority with powers to act in particular manner and has prescribed the conditions limiting the scope of powers, the Court should not act outside the powers and fetters. The power is not to be resorted to, if there is a specific provision in the Code for redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved party. 20. As said earlier, alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. I am, therefore of the opinion that the present misc. petitions seeking relief for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are not at all maintainable at this stage when the case is pending for committal proceedings and the charges are yet to be framed. 21. However, taking an over-all conspectus of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioners, namely, Mahavir Prasad, Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain (Pak National), and Mohd. Nasir s/o Haji Abbas (Afghan National), deserves bail. But, their petitions seeking relief for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them deserve to be rejected. 22. In the result, I dismiss criminal misc. petition Nos. 242/89 (Mahavir Prasad vs. State), 329/89(Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain vs. State), and partly petition No. 325/89 (Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Haji Abbas vs. State) and allow criminal misc. petition Nos. 1004/89) (Mahavir Prasad vs. State), & No. 4365/89 (Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain vs. State) and also while granting bail to petitioner, Mahavir Prasad & Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain, order to release petitioners, Mohd. Nasir s/o Haji Abbas. 23. Therefore, the petitioners namely, Mahavir Prasad, Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd Hussain & Mohd. petition Nos. 1004/89) (Mahavir Prasad vs. State), & No. 4365/89 (Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain vs. State) and also while granting bail to petitioner, Mahavir Prasad & Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd. Hussain, order to release petitioners, Mohd. Nasir s/o Haji Abbas. 23. Therefore, the petitioners namely, Mahavir Prasad, Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd Hussain & Mohd. Nasir s/o Haji Abbas, presently lodged in sub-jail at Sri Karanpur, are ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 7/89 at police station Shri Karanpur & in Cr. case No. 140/89, on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of rupees one lacs with four sureties each in a sum of rupees twenty five thousand to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp at Sri Karanpur with the stipulation to appear in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur on 17.10 89 and thereafter on each and every date before the trial court during trial or before the committal court; and further all the petitioners will not leave India without obtaining permission of the trial Court. 24. However, in the interest of justice, the subordinate courts at directed to expedite the criminal proceedings and trial in the present case.