1. That in a case titled as Power Development Department, J&K through electricity Inspector Versus Dr. Pushpinder Singh, which was pending before the learned Sub-Judge, the Electricity Mobile Magistrate, Jammu came to convict the accused/Respondent for offences under Sections 38, 39 and 43 of the Electricity Act by imposing fine to the tune of Rs.1,100/-only, in default of payment of fine, the accused/Respondent will undergo simple imprisonment for ten days only. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the Power Development Department has filed the writ petition, where in he sought quashing of the said order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Incase titled as Estralla Rubber, Appellants. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. Respondent, reported in (2001) Supreme Court cases 97 has laid down that the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the ambit as under:- "The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and the tribunals with the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner, the High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and inferring with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of derious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court dies not interferes a grave injustice, remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal. If there is no evidence at all to justify or the findings if so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 4. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal. If there is no evidence at all to justify or the findings if so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 4. Besides this, the law is settled on the point that the High Court while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to ascertain whether the Court or the Tribunal has jurisdiction to ascertain whether the Court or the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to deal with the particular matter and whether impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularity. See (2001) a Supreme Court Cases 477. 5. Having regard to this law let me to examine the order impugned, it reveals that a complaint under Sections 38 and 42 of the Electricity Act came to be instituted before the Court of learned Sub, Judge Electricity Mobile Magistrate, Jammu, who came to proceed with the case by following the procedure prescribed for the trial of warrant cases, because the punishment provided for an offence under Section 38 of the electricity Act is to the extent to three years or, with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees but shall not be less than one thousand rupees, or with both. Therefore, the offence is a warrant case as defined under Section 4 Clause (s) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (1933 A.D.). The Magistrate has rightly followed the procedure in the case as provided for the trial of warrant cases and framed charge or the offences under Sections 38 and 46 of the Act. The order further reveals that the accused/respondent pleaded guilty to the charge for an offence punishable under Sections 38 and 46 of the Electricity Act, accordingly, the learned Magistrate convicted him of the said offence for which he was competent under the law and came to impose fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 38 and Rs.100/- under Section 46 of the Electricity Act. The impugned order thus demonstrates that the learned Magistrate had followed the right procedure in the case while recording the impugned order. There is nothing to show that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or it is vitiated by any procedural irregularity. The impugned order thus demonstrates that the learned Magistrate had followed the right procedure in the case while recording the impugned order. There is nothing to show that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or it is vitiated by any procedural irregularity. If the complainant/ the petitioner has any grievance against the impugned order, he is at liberty to challenge the same in a revision or in an appeal as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to usurp the power of the appellate or revisional authority granted under the power of the appellate or revisional authority granted under the Statute. This being so, there is no merit in this case, the same is dismissed in limine.