JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J. —This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 2-8-1991 passed by Sessions Judge, Kangra, in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1991, dated 2-8-1991, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, ordering the release of the seized gold. 2. Raiding party consisting of many officials of the Central Excise Division, Pathankot, acting on an information, raided the business premises of respondent No. 1. At the time of raid, respondent No. 2 was present in the business premises, being the partner of the firm. Search of the business premises did not reveal any contraband gold. However, from the residential premises of respondent No. 2, contraband articles of gold were recovered. The total weight of the contraband gold was 1570.10 grams, valuing Rs. 4,53,992.50, recovered from a locked wooden almirah of respondent No. 2. After the recovery of the gold, respondent No. 2 voluntarily gave statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Ex. PA). 3. A complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, under section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was represented through counsel in the Court at Dharamshala. The counsel failed to intimate the petitioner the requirement of his being present on any date for the purpose of recording of his evidence nor was the petitioner informed about the production of departmental witnesses Resultantly, on 15-11-1990, the petitioner was not present but Inspector Shri Amrish Gautam of the department was present. The case was at the stage of recording of the pre-charge evidence. Witnesses were not present Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, closed the evidence of the petitioner and discharged the accused on 15-11-1990. The trial Court further ordered that the case property be returned to the person(s) who gets a declaration of entitlement from the Civil Court, since several other persons had laid claim to the same before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, collusive suits for declaration and for mandatory injunction, claiming to be entitled to the possession and ownership of different parts and portions of the confiscated gold, were filed in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra. In the suits, respondent No 2 has been arrayed as defendant. Accordingly, collusive suits for declaration and for mandatory injunction, claiming to be entitled to the possession and ownership of different parts and portions of the confiscated gold, were filed in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra. In the suits, respondent No 2 has been arrayed as defendant. Against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 15-11-1990, revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Kangra. It was dismissed on 2~8-U9l. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate was also modified in respect of the return of the seized gold by directing the petitioner to hand over the same to the respondents. 4. It has been pleaded, inter alia, that the order is illegal, therefore, deserves to be set-aside. The courts did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant and the witnesses to be produced were also from the Government department. In the absence of any intimation from the counsel, their non-appearance was neither wilful nor intentional. The court should have taken into consideration these facts and allowed another opportunity to the petitioner to produce the witnesses. Hypertechnical view of the matter has been taken and despite seriousness of the case, the case has been closed and accused discharged. The facts disclose a case against the accused. However, they have been let off by the trial Court by the impugned order. The order for the release of the seized contraband gold in favour of the respondents is not proper, more, particularly in view of the pending suits relating to it. 5. This petition has been opposed by the respondents. It has been pleaded, inter alia, that it is not maintainable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the revision by the petitioner against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate has been dismissed. No further revision was maintainable, therefore, the matter cannot be examined under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India since no case for exercising these extraordinary powers has been made in the facts and circumstances of this case. Further, it has been stated that the filing of the present petit/on is abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as the complaint was filed on 15-5-90. The accused were summoned for 18-6-1990, when they were required to furnish bail bonds with one surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000. Further, it has been stated that the filing of the present petit/on is abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as the complaint was filed on 15-5-90. The accused were summoned for 18-6-1990, when they were required to furnish bail bonds with one surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000. The case was thereafter fixed for 16-7-1990 for evidence when two prosecution witnesses, S/Shri Jagdish Rat and Hans Raj, were present. These two persons were witnesses of recovery, but they were not examined on 16-7-1990. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not present and he would examine the complainant in the case. He undertook to produce the complainant and the other officials on the next date. These two recovery witnesses were bound down for 17-8-1990. 6. On 17-8-1990, S/Shri Jagdish Rai and Hans Raj were given up on the ground that they had been won over. Again, the case was postponed to 9-10-1990, but neither the prosecution witnesses were brought nor process-fee and diet money was deposited by the complainant for this date. Again, the case was adjourned to 15-11-1990. On this day, the remaining witnesses of the complainant were not present. It was stated that it was on account of communication gap that the witnesses could not be present. Left with no alternative, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in closing the case for reasons duly recorded in the order. It was incumbent upon the complainant to have produced the evidence on 15-11-1990 since the court had allowed it last opportunity on 9-10-1990. The accused have been involved in this case for nothing. The order of their detention has been revoked by the Central Government vide order dated 8-8-1989 as there was no sufficient cause for detention. 7. Rejoinder has been filed and an attempt has been made to explain the averments contained in the reply of the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard, record perused. Shri Chhabil Dass, learned Counsel for the accused, contended that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge has been dismissed. Under section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, second revision is not maintainable under the garb of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Chhabil Dass, learned Counsel for the accused, contended that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge has been dismissed. Under section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, second revision is not maintainable under the garb of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, it is not a fit case where these extraordinary powers should be exercised by the court since no glaring injustice has been meted out to the petitioner. Ends of justice do not require that this court should exercise these powers to help a recalcitrant litigant bent upon harassing the accused-respondents. In support of this, reference was made to decisions like ILR 1974 HP 660, Surinder Singh v, Inder Sain ; AIR 1979 SC381, Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another ; 1990 (Supp) SCC 132, Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka ; and AIR 1993 SC 1361, Dharampal and others v. Smt. Ramshri and others. 9. From the opposite side, Shri P. A. Sharma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, placed reliance on para 10 of AIR 1980 SC 258, Raj Kapoor and others v State {Delhi Administration) and others, holding that : "... . In short, there is no total ban on the exercise of inherent power where abuse of the process of the court or other extraordinary situation excites the courts jurisdiction The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more. The policy of the law is clear that interlocutory orders, pure and simple, should not be taken up to the High Court resulting in unnecessary litigation and delay. At the other extreme, final orders are clearly capable of being considered in exercise of inherent power, if glaring injustice stares the court in the face. In between is a tertium guid, Untwalia, J . has pointed out as for example, where it is more than a purely interlocutory order and less than a final dissosal The present case falls under that category where the accused complain of harassment through the courts process. Can we state that in this third category the inherent power can be exercised"..... In addition, assistance was sought from 1984 Cri LJ 1538, G. K Ralhan v. The State and another and ATR 1992 SC 604, State of Haryana and others v. Ch Bhajan Lai and others 10. Can we state that in this third category the inherent power can be exercised"..... In addition, assistance was sought from 1984 Cri LJ 1538, G. K Ralhan v. The State and another and ATR 1992 SC 604, State of Haryana and others v. Ch Bhajan Lai and others 10. Powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, independently or in conjunction with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought not to be exercised in every case. They may be unrestricted in scope but it is well-settled that these powers should not be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily but should be exercised in appropriate case ex-debito justitiae Courts must, therefore, be careful to see that these powers are exercised sparingly and in deserving cases. Since the Legislature has prohibited second revision under section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the duty of the court is to see that it is not called upon to exercise these powers under the garb of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or both. In any case, where the aggrieved party may have been unsuccessful before the Sessions Court, heavy onus lies on the petitioner to demonstrate that the facts of the case are so compelling that incase these powers are not exercised, abuse of the process of the court cannot be prevented nor ends of justice secured, 11. It appears from the file that the complaint was filed on 15-5-1990. The trial Magistrate issued summons without recording preliminary evidence and fixed the complaint for 18-6-1990. On this day, the accused were present in the court and they furnished bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with surety, accepted by the court. The case was ordered to be listed on 16-7- 19^0 for pre-charge evidence On 16-7-1990, two independent witnesses from the list of witnesses, namely, Jagdish Rai and Hans Raj were present. On the statement of the Counsel for Assistant Collector, Customs, these two. witnesses were given up on the ground that they had been won over by the accused. Thereafter, the case was posted on 9-10-1990 for prosecution witnesses. They were to be summoned for this date, for this purpose. On the statement of the Counsel for Assistant Collector, Customs, these two. witnesses were given up on the ground that they had been won over by the accused. Thereafter, the case was posted on 9-10-1990 for prosecution witnesses. They were to be summoned for this date, for this purpose. The complainant neither filed the process-fee nor diet money nor complied with the order dated 17-8-1990 On 9-10-1990, the trial Court found that the prosecution witnesses were not present, process-fee had not been filed nor diet money deposited The complainant requested for adjournment, The complainant was ordered to file process-fee, diet money and complete addresses of the prosecution witnesses and ordered their summoning for 15-11-1990. 12. On 15-11-1990, it was found that neither process-fee nor diet- money was deposited nor the witnesses were present According to the list of witnesses filed by the complainant, all are official witnesses, but their addresses are not there, which should have been done by the complainant. The complainant did not take any steps in the matter. In these circum stances, the Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused. 13. What else could have been done by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in these circumstances. Opportunities were given to the complainant. It failed to deal with the case properly and efficiently, The matter was adjourned from time to time. When witnesses were not present on al! , these dates, the order of discharge of the accused was passed. The contention that another opportunity should have been given to the complainant since they belong to the Government department, is clearly unsustainable. Production of departmental witnesses was not difficult for the complainant. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the complainant was prosecuting the case limpingly, causing harassment to the respondents who had been subjected to prosecution under the special enactments 14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the impugned orders amount to abuse of the process of the court calling for interference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India As stated above, these powers are to be exercised sparingly and in really deserving cases. This is not so in the present case. 15. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. This is not so in the present case. 15. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.