Judgment :- This C.R.P. is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order of the Special Judge No. I/XI Additional Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No. 1036/98 in C.C. No. 7/97 dated 28.12.98. 2. The petitioner herein filed an application to postpone the further proceedings in C.C. No. 7/97 until and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. as well as the directions of the High Court in Crl. O.P. No. 14620/97. The Special Judge dismissed the application. The revision is against this order. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this application are as follows: The petitioner is accused No. 2 in a final report filed by the respondent under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After filing of the final report, finding that the documents furnished were in English language, petitioner filed an application under Section 207, Cr.P.C. requiring to furnish the documents in Tamil language. As against the rejection off the said application, she preferred Crl.O.P. No. 14620/97 before this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to set aside the order refusing to grant the Tamil translation. This Court, by a judgment dated 28.12.98, in Crl.O.P. No. 14620 etc . batch of 1997, allowed those applications, set aside the order of the lower Court and held that the petitioners are entitled to be furnished with copies of the records translated in Tamil. There was no stay pending disposal of the application. Hence, the Special Judge ordered the summoning of two witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 28.12.98 under Section 207 for postponing of the hearing since the proceedings cannot go on unless the documents in Tamil are furnished to the petitioner. The learned Special Judge, by his order dated 28.12.98, held that if the petitioner is given an opportunity to recall the witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination, their rights will not be jeopardized nor prejudiced, and hence dismissed the application. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. The learned Special Judge, by his order dated 28.12.98, held that if the petitioner is given an opportunity to recall the witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination, their rights will not be jeopardized nor prejudiced, and hence dismissed the application. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Court has already directed the furnishing of documents under Section 207 and unless the said direction is complied with and documents are furnished, there could never be a commencement of trial under Section 238, Cr.P.C. The order of the Special Judge examining the witnesses, in spite of the directions, is illegal and contrary to the order of this Court. Even the Chief Examination is not a matter of trifle and it is of vital concern to the accused and it could never be-proceeded with without furnishing documents and without giving opportunity to the accused. It is necessary to formulate her defence. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the C.R.P. under Article 227 of the constitution. According to him, the petitioner ought to have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 483 read with Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. Article 227 can be invoked only under extraordinary circumstances, and not in a case of such nature. 6. He further submitted that the charges were framed on 4.6.97 and only two witnesses have been examined in chief and recorded in Tamil, petitioner was represented by counsel and there is absolutely no prejudice to the petitioner on the evidence being taken in Tamil. The documents which were directed to be furnished are not to be produced in the Court. According to him, the petitioners intention is only to delay and drag on the proceedings. 7. In reply to the said objection to maintainability, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to invoke Article 227 when there is an abuse of process of the Court and when the minimum and fundamental requirement of the production of document is denied and when there is a violation of principles of natural justice. He relied on the observation in the Division Bench judgment in W.P. Nos. 7096 etc. of 1997 dated 3.11.98 in support of his submissions. 8. I have heard the counsel and considered the matter carefully. 9. He relied on the observation in the Division Bench judgment in W.P. Nos. 7096 etc. of 1997 dated 3.11.98 in support of his submissions. 8. I have heard the counsel and considered the matter carefully. 9. The proceedings against which the revision is filed are criminal in nature, pending before the Special Judge with the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is also seen that as against the orders pending the Criminal Cases, the petitioner his invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 in reference to the order refusing to grant the translated documents in Crl. O.P. No. 14620/97. 10. In an identical issue raised by another accused in a Criminal Revision C.C. No. 3/92 under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court not to examine the witnesses summoned by the Court without furnishing the copies and statement of witnesses in Tamil, this court, in an order dated 26.2.99 in Crl.R.C. No. 167/99, held as follows:— “The learned special Judge (trial Judge) has ordered documents to be furnished in Tamil and also gave liberty to the petitioner to recall the witnesses and cross-examine them after the Tamil Translation is given to her. In my view, that part of the order is quite in order and no interference is called for. However, furnishing of the copies in Tamil shall be expedited and translated Tamil Copies shall be furnished to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible without the least delay to enable the petitioner to participate in the trial by recalling the witnesses already examined in Chief, for cross-examination. The revision case is ordered accordingly. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 1604 of 1999 is dismissed as not necessary.” 11. Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to have superintendence over all Courts in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction. Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code is more specifically worded in that, it empowers the High Court to have superintendence over the Courts of judicial magistrates subordinate to it, so as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such magistrates. Apart from this power of superintendence under Section 483, the High Court has got power of revision under Section 401 to call for and examine the record of any proceedings. Apart from this power of superintendence under Section 483, the High Court has got power of revision under Section 401 to call for and examine the record of any proceedings. Section 482 saves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, from a plain reading of Article 227 and Section 483, I am of the view that Section 483, which equally confers powers of superintendence of the High Court, is more specifically suited over the Courts of judicial magistrates. I am also of the view that in the nature of things, namely that several proceedings were initiated against the orders of the Special Courts, revisions were moved before this Court as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court has been invoked by the petitioner herself in allied matters, it is but proper and necessary in the interest of uniformity of orders and to avoid inconsistency, the appropriate provision under the Cr.P.C. is invoked. 12. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Ptg. Company v. Ramtahel ( AIR 1972 S.C. 1598 ). The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the Subordinate Courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority, and not for correcting mere errors. The Supreme Court, while considering the jurisdiction under Article 226 vis-à-vis in that case, further held, “we should, however, not be understood to express our approval of the use of Article 227 for seeking relief by way of writ or directions in the nature of writ, for which purpose Article 226 is expressly and in precise language designed”. Thus, when there is an express provision made for an identical purpose of superintendence by the Court and to ensure proper disposal of cases by such magistrates, Section 483 is the appropriate provision. In Chandrasekar Singh and others v. Siya Ram Singh and others (1979) 3 SCC 118 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the power under Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. In Chandrasekar Singh and others v. Siya Ram Singh and others (1979) 3 SCC 118 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the power under Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. Their Lordships observed as follows:— “It is admitted that the powers conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the (Constitution cannot in any way be curtailed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the (Constitution can be invoked in spite of the restrictions placed: under Section 146 (1-D) of the Criminal Procedure Code. But the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 is restricted. This court has repeatedly held that “the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors vide Waryam Singh v. Amarnath. ( 1954 SCR 565 : AIR 1954 SC 215 : !954 SCJ 290). In a later decision, Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam ( 1958 SCR 1240 : AIR 1958 SC 398 : 1958 SCJ 798), the view was reiterated and it was held that the power of judicial-interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority”. The parameters set out by the Supreme Court is not available in this case. 13. The Division Bench, in W.P. No. 7096/97 etc. dated 3.11.98, has held that the exercise of judicial power as may be warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case is very much available. The observation of Padmanabhan, J, can be usefully extracted:— “The power of transfer as well as the provisions with respect to judicial power of transfer under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Article 227 of the Constitution and clause 29 of the Letters Patent could always be exercised as they have not been excluded specifically, much less implicitly”. The provisions of Cr.P.C. viz . The provisions of Cr.P.C. viz . Sections 194, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, and 4.32 as also Section 227 of the Constitution of India are specifically referred as applicable on the facts of the case. 14. The Constitutional power of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be curtailed but the said power being extraordinary, it is not ordinarily invoked when there are statutory provisions providing effective relief to the petitioner. There is no reason as to why the petitioner cannot move the High Court either under S. 482 or S. 483 Cr.P.C, especially when the petitioner had earlier invoked Section 482. 15. For the above reasons, the objection of maintainability under Article 227 is sustained and hence, I am not inclined to go into the other contentions and submissions made on the merits of the order. 16. Therefore, in order to maintain uniformity and to avoid any inconsistency in the orders passed by the High Court, both on the Criminal and Civil side, this C.R.P. is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court under Section 483 and other provisions of Cr.P.C. The C.R.P. is ordered accordingly. Consequently, C.M.P. No3751/99 is dismissed.