Holding

While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, a High Court may pass any order, including the award of costs, to give effect to the Code, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice, provided the order is not inconsistent with any statutory provision.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by accused A3‑A6 challenging a Madras High Court order that imposed Rs 10,000 costs on each of them for filing a frivolous revision under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The High Court had imposed the costs to deter abuse of process after the appellants suppressed an earlier order that had set aside their discharge and had delayed the trial for eight years. The appellants argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to award costs except under Sections 148(3), 342 and 359 of the CrPC, and that the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" barred such inherent power. The Court held that Section 482 confers independent inherent powers on the High Court, allowing it to pass "such orders" – including costs – to give effect to the Code, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice, provided the order is not inconsistent with any statutory provision. It clarified that this power is extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly, and is not limited by the specific cost provisions of the CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order of costs upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can impose costs while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Whether the specific cost provisions of the CrPC (Sections 148(3), 342, 359) limit the High Court's inherent power to award costs.
Whether the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" restricts the High Court from awarding costs in the absence of a specific statutory provision.
Whether costs awarded in such circumstances can be exemplary or merely to meet litigation expenses.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 148(3), s. 342, s. 357, s. 358, s. 359, s. 561(A)
Dowry Prohibition Acts. 3, s. 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 315, s. 406, s. 420, s. 498A

Subjects

inherent jurisdictionSection 482 CrPCcosts awardabuse of processexpressio unius est exclusio alteriusexemplary costscriminal revisiondowry prohibitionSupreme Court of India

Judgment

t-

A MARY ANGEL AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU

MAY 13, 1999

B [K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]

Criminal 'Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-lnherent powers of
High Court-Scope of-Power to impose costs-Maxims-Maxim-expressio
unius est exclusio a/terius-Applicability.
c "
A charge sheet was filed against Al to A6 u/s 498A, 406, 420, 315
Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A3 to
A6, appellants were discharged by the Sessions Court holding that they
had not demanded dowry and there was no material to show that
D medicine for abortion was administered on their instigation. In Revision
filed by the complainant, the High Court set aside the order of discharge
and in pursuance of that order, Sessions Judge framed charges against
appellants also. The appellants filed Criminal Revision alleging that
th~re was no prima facie case for framing of charges against them,
without disclosing that revision against the order of non-framing charges
E was allowed earlier by the High Court holding that there was suffic1ent
material for framing of charges. The High Court dismissing the petition
while observing that the proceeding had been dragged on for 8 years
and th~t appellants had not allowed the Sessions Court to comply with
the directions of the High C.ourt to complete the trial as expeditiously as
possible, imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on each of the appellants, to be paid
F to· the com~lainant, wife of Al. This appeal had been filed challenging
the said order of the High Court.
;..-

The appellants submitted that in Criminal cases High Court has no
jurisdiction to impose costs except as provided u/s 148(3), 342 & 359 of the
G Criminal Procedure Code empowering the High Court to impose costs and

-
that inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised contrary to the said
provisions.

The respondent submitted that while exercising its jurisdiction u/s
482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to impose costs
H to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends
594
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 595
of justice and that in the instant case the High Court rightly exercised its A
~
. inherent jurisdiction and imposed costs to be paid to the cruelly treated wife
considering that the accused prevented the Sessions Court from proceeding
with the case and by suppressing the previous order passed by the High
Court, approached the Court for quashing and setting aside the charges
framed against them.
B
The question raised for consideration of this Court was whether the
High Court had such jurisdiction to impose costs while exercising its inherent
powers.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court c
HELD : \.1. While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482,
Court has power to pass 'such order' (not inconsistent with any provision
of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, (i) to give
effect to any order passed under the Code or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This D
extraordinary power is to be used in extraordinary circumstances and in a
judicious manner. Costs may be to meet the litigation expenses or can be
exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes. [609-D]
.
1.2. Section 482 Cr. P.C. stands independently from other provisions
E
of the Code and it expressly saves inherent powers of the High Court.
Therefore, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, the High Court is empowered to pass 'such order'
which may include order to pay costs to the informant (complainant) and the
language of the section does not in terms place any fetter. This power is not
conditioned or controlled by any other section nor is curtailed by any F
provisions which empower the court to award costs. This jurisdiction is of
exceptional nature and is to be exercised in exceptional cases for achieving
the purpose stated in the section. Secondly, costs could be either for the
purpose stated in the section. Secondly, costs could be either for the purpose
of meeting the expenses of the litigation as it can be exemplary to prevent
G
the abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice or giving
.,,, effect to any order passed under the Code. 1600-B-E]

1.3 There is no negative provision that except the cases for which the
costs could be awarded under different sections of the Code, High Court
shall not exercise its inherent jurisdiction of granting costs. In cases where H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 999] 3 s. c.R.

A for preventing abuse of the process of law or for securing justice, Court may
find that order for costs including exemplary costs is required to be passed,
then the phrase "such order" w~uld include the same and there is no reason

B
to restrict the ambit of the phrase such power. Secondly with regard to the

.
inherent jurisdiction the statute does not say that inherent power recognized
. . ~ -
is only such as has been exercised in the past either. High Courts have
-
inherent power to secure the ends of justice which are in the nature of
extraordinary powers where no express power is av:tilable to the High Court
to do a particular thing and when its express power do not negative the
existence of such inherent power. [606-E-F)
c
1.4. The maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" has its limited
operation. Its operation is to be restricted with regard to the sections which
empower the Court to grant costs in certain cases by holding that for the 1•

c D
...
cases mentioned in those sections, Court cannot exercise its inherent
jurisdiction of granting costs or pass an order of granting costs in.a method
and mode different from what is provided by the said sections. Application
of this maxim would lead to inconsistency and ·injustice because in cases
where Court finds that a petition under Section 482 is an abuse .of the
process of law and an unjustifiable petition for some ulterior motive including
E dragging of the proceedings of Court it can pa~s any other order, but not the
order for costs. No legislati\i'e enactment dealing with the, procedure can
provide for all cases and that Court should have inherent powers apart from
the express provision of law which are necessary for the proper discharge
of duties. Application of the aforesaid maxim for interpreting Section 482.
would.have only limited.operation. [607-F-G; 609-CI
F
Pampathy v. State of Mysore, (1966) Suppl SCR 477; Dr. Raghubir
Sharan v. State of Bihar, (1966) 2 SCR 336; Asstt. Collector Central Excise
v. National Tobacco Co., [1972} 2 SCC 560; Prabhani Transport Co-op
Society Ltd v. RTA Aurangabad, (1960) 3 SCR 177; Harish Chander Vajpai
G v. Triloki Singh, [1957) SCR 371 and State ofBihar v. Ram Chand<!r Aggarwal,
[1979) I SCR 1ll4, relied on.

lasuJanu Pawar& Ors. v. Emperor, (1948) AIR Born 169; A.T. Shankara
Linga Mudaliar v. Narayana Mudaliar & Ors., {1922) AIR Mad 502 and
H P. Veerappa v. Avudayammal & Anr., AIR (1925) Mad 438, distinguished.
~··
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHAH, J.] 597

Re Bombay Civil Fund Act. 1882; Pringle v. SecretG1y of State of India, A
(1889) Chancery Division 288; Guardian of West Ham Union v. The Church
Warden and Overseas & Ors., (1896) Law Reports 477; Dean v. Wiesengrund,
(1955) 2 QBD 120 and Colquhoon v. Brooks, 1887 (19) QBD 400, referred. to.

CRIMINAL APPELL.A. TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
570of1999. B

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.98 of the Madras High Court

.. in Crl. R.C .No. 60 I of 1996 .

S. Sivasubramaniam and R. Ayyam Perumal for the Appellants.
c
V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent in No. I.

K.S. Gnanasambandan and M.A. Chinnasamy for the Respondent No.
2.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. Leave granted.

The question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court has
jurisdiction to impose "exemplary cost of .Rs. 10,000" to be paid by each of E
the appellants while rejecting a frivolous or vexatious petition under Section
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the charge framed against
the appellants?

FIR was lodged by Josephine Jaya on 29th September, l 989 stating that
her in-Jaws demanded from her father Rs. 60,000 in cash, 65 sovereigns of gold F
jewellary for the bride and nine sovereigns or similar jewellary for the groom;
that out of Rs.60,000, Rs. 50,000 were paid; that after the marriage, she was
treated cruelly and there were unlawful demands for a colour television and
Rs. 50,000 in cash. It is also alleged that at the instigation of in-laws accused.
nos. 2 to 6, accused No. I (her husband) administered certain medicine with G
,. a view to abort her pregnancy. After preliminary investigation, on 18th October,
1989, a charge sheet was filed against A I to A6 under Sections 498(A), 406,
420, 315 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Nagercoil and was numbered as Sessions
Case No. I 0 of 1989. Accused Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under Section
227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for their discharge. H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 3 S.C.R.

A That application was allowed by holding that they had not demanded dowry
and there is no material to show that medicine for abortion was administered
at their instigation. Against that order, complainant filed Criminal R.C. No.
442 of 1990 before the High Court of Madras. By Order dated 9th July, 1993,
the High Court allowed the Revision case filed by the complainant and set
aside the order of discharge. In pursuance of the said Ord.er, on 13th June,.
B 1996, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused Nos. A3 to A6
also.

Against.that Order dated 13th June, 1996, accused Nos.3 to 6, that is,
the present appellants preferred Criminal Revisio!l case No. 60 I of 1996 before
C the High Court on the ground that there was no prima facie case for framing
of charges against them. The Court while dismissing the same observed that
the proceedings have been dragged on for 8 years and that petition was filed
without disclosing even to the learned counsel that revision against the order
of non-framing of charges was allowed earlier by the High Court by holding
that there was sufficient material for framing charges. The Court also observed .
D that despite the directions of the High Court to the Sessions Court to finish
the trial as expeditiously as possible, appellants have not allowed the Sessions
Court to comply with the said directions of the High Court. Considering the
aforesaid conduct, the High· Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 each on the
appellants to be pai.d to the informant (complainant), wife of accused no. 1
E and directed the Sessions Court to dispose of the case within two months
from the date of the communication of the Order. That Order is challenged
before us in this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted tQ.at in criminal
cases High Court has no jurisdiction to impose costs except as provided
F under Sections 148(3), 342 & 359 of the Cr. ·P.C. empowering the Court to
impose costs and submitted that inherent powers of the Court cannot be
exercised contrary to the said provisions. As against this, learned Counsel
for the respondent submitted that while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has inherent
jurisdiction to impose costs to prevent the abuse of the process of law or
G otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is submitted that for one or other
reason, the accused prevented the Sessions Court from proceeding with the
case and by suppressing the previous Order passed by the High Court,
approached the Court for quashing and setting aside the charges framed
against them. It is, therefore, submitted that the High Court has rightly
H exercised its inherent powers and has imposed costs to be paid to the cruelly
0
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHAH, J.] 599

treated wife (informant). A
Admittedly, in Criminal R.C. No. 442of1990 and Criminal R.P. No. 440
of 1990, the High Court by its detailed judgment and order dated 9th July
1993, allowed the said Revision Petitions by holding that there were sufficient
grounds on record to establish prima facie case against the accused for
framing the charges and Additional Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction B
in law as well as totally overlooked the material facts available on record by
discharging the appellants. Despite the aforesaid order and by suppressing
the same, appellants filed petition under Section 482 before the High Court

- for quashing the charges framed against them. In such circumstances, Court
has imposed the costs to be paid to the wife of accused No.1 to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
C

The. question is whether the Court had such jurisdiction? For deciding
it, we would first refer to the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure
Code upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants
which empowers the Court to impose costs. Section 148(3) provides that D
when any costs have been incurred by any party to a proceeding under
Section 145, Section 146 or Section 147, the Magistrate passing a decision
may direct by whom such costs shall be paid, whether by 5uch party or by
any other party to the proceeding, and whether in whole or in part or
proportion and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of E
witnesses and of pleaders' fees, which the Court may consider reasonable.
Section 342 provides that any Court dealing with an application made to it
for filing a complaint under Section 340 or an appeal under Section 341,
shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just. Further,
Section 359 empowers the Court to order payment of cost to the complainant
in non cognizable case, if it convicts the accused and in such case, the Court F
can pass an order for payment of costs incurred by the complainant in the
prosecution of the case and such costs may include any expenses incurred
in respect of process fees, witnesses and pleaders fees which the Court
considers reasonable. This power can also be exercised by the Appellate
Court or by the High Court or Court of Sessions exercising its power deciding G
the appeal or revision. Section 357 provides for payment of compensation to
the victim for any loss or
injury caused by the offence or in case of death
of the heirs of the victims out of the fine imposed and while awarding
compensation court has to take into consideration, inter alia, the expenses
properly incurred in the prosecution; Section 358 provides for payment of
compensation where any person causes a police officer to arrest another H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 999] 3 S.C.R.

A person, without sufficient ground for causing such arrest, then compensation
can be awarded by the Magistrate not exceeding Rs. l 00/-. It is, therefore,
submitted that Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of costs de hors
the aforesaid statutory provisions.

In our view, Section 482 Cr. P.C. stands independently from other
B provisions of the Code and it expressly saves inherent powers of the High
Court by providing that "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court or other.wise to secure the ends of justice". Therefore,
C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice, the High Court is empowered to pass "such order" which may
include order to pay costs to the informant (complainant) and the language
of the section does not in terms place any fetter. This power is not conditioned
or controlled by any other section nor is curtailed by any provisions which
empower the court to award costs. No doubt, this jurisdiction. is of exceptional
D nature and is to be exercised in exceptional cases for achieving the purposes
stated in the section. Secondly, costs could be either for the purpose of
meeting the expenses of the litigation as it can be exemplary to prevent the
abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice or giving effect
to any order passed under the Code.
E Learned counsel [Qr the appellants relied upon the decision of this
Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Aggarwal Etc., [1979] I SCR 1114
and submitted that inherent powers of the High Court could not be exercised
for awarding costs when Criminal Procedure Code provides for awarding of
costs in limited cases. In the aforesaid case, Court was dealing with the
F contention whether the High Court could review its Judgment and Order
despite the specific bar under Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code
except to correct a clerical error. The Court held that in view of Section 369
Cr. P.C. which prohibits all courts when it has signed its judgment to alter
or review the same except to correct a clerical error and that in the case of
G a High Court, the prohibition was subject to the Letters patent or other
instrument constituting such High Court. In similar provision section 362
under the new Code, subsequent part is omitted. Hence, the Court held that
giving the plain meaning of Section 369, it was clear that no Court, subject
to exception made in the section, shall alter or review its judgment; inherent
powers of the High Court were meant to give effect to any order under the
H Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHAH, J.] 601

the ends of justice. Hence, such powers cannot be invoked as it would be A
inconsistent with the specific provisions of the Code. The Court further held
that Section 56l(A) of the Code confers no new powers, it merely safeguards
existing inherent powers possessed by a High Court necessary (among other
purposes) to secure the ends of justice and "by the introduction of the
section, it was made clear that the inherent powers of the Court, for the
purposes mentioned in the section, shall not be deemed to be limited or B
affected by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code."

Further, in the case of Pampathy v. State of Mysore, [1966] Supp. SCR
477, this Court dealt with the contention that the High Court cannot exercise
inherent jurisdiction under Section 56l(A) of Cr. P.C., 1898 of cancelling C
bail when the appellant was released on bail by the High Court under
Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code pending disposal of the appeal.
Negativing the said contention, the Court held that it was true that in
Section 498 and Section 497(5), the Legislature had made express provision
for cancellation of bail bond in the case of accused persons released on bail
during the course of trial but no such express provision has been made by D
the Legislature in the case of a convicted person and whose sentence has
been suspended under Section 426, yet there is no bar for exercise of inherent
powers for cancellation of bail pending appeal. The Court observed, "there
is obviously a lacuna but the omission of the legislature to make a specific
provision in that · behalf is clearly due to oversight or inadvertence and E
cannot be regarded as deliberate." The Court held that inherent powers of
the High Court could be exercised only for either of the three purposes
specifically mentioned in the Section; it cannot be invoked in respect of any
matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code; it cannot also be
invoked if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions
of the Code; if the matter in question is not covered by any specific provisions F
of the Code, power woulp come into operation. The Court pertinently observed
"no legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases
that can possibly arise and it is an established principle that the Court
should have inherent powers, apart from the express provision of law, which
are necessary to their existence for the proper discharge of the duties imposed G
r
upon them by law."
I
Next, we would refer to the decision in Dr. Raghubir Sharan v. The>
State of Bihar, [ 1964] 2 SCR 336 wherein this Court considered the power of
the High Court to expunge remarks made against a medical practitioner who
submitted his opinion on the health of the accused pending the proceedings H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A before magistrate. While considering the scope of inherent powers under
section 561 (A) of the Code, the Court succinctly analysed the jurisdiction
which could be exercised by the High Court in the following words :-

"When we speak of inherent powers of the High Court of a State we
mean the powers which must, by reason of its being the highest
B court in the State having general jurisdiction over civil and criminal
courts in the State, inhere in that court. The powers in a sense are
an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the
courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly administrative and
partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable
c with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice.
When· we speak of ends of justice we do not use the expression to
comprise within it any vague or nebulous concept of justice, nor
even justice in the philosophical sense but justice according to law,
the statute law and the common law. Again, this power is not
exercisable every time the High Court finds that there has been a
D miscarriage of justice. For, the procedural laws of the State provide
for correction of most of the errors of subordinate courts which may
have resulted in miscarriage of justice. These errors can be corrected
only by resorting to the procedure prescribed by law and not otherwise.
Inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers available
E only where no express power is available to the High Court to do
a particular thing and where its express power do not negative the
existence ofsuch inherent power. The further condition for its exercise,
in so far as cases arising out of the exercise by the subordinate courts
of their criminal jurisdiction are concerned, is that it must be necessary
to resort to it for giving effect to an order under the Code of Criminal
F Procedure or for preventing an abuse of the process of the court or
for otherwise securing the ends of justice.

The power to expunge remarks is no doubt an extraordinary power
but nevertheless it does exist for redressing a kind of grievance for
which the statute provides no remedy in express terms. The fact that
G the statute recognizes that the High Courts are not confined to the
exercise of powers expressly conferred by it and may continue to
exercise their inherent powers makes three things clear. One, that
extraordinary situations may call for the exercise of extraordinary
powers. Second, that the High Courts have inherent power to secure
H the ends ofjustice. Third, that the express provisions of the Code do
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHAH, J.] 603
not affect that power. The precise powers which inhere in the High A
Court are deliberately not defined by s.561-A for good reason. It is
obviously not possible to attempt to define the variety of
circumstances which will call for their exercise. No doubt, this section
confers no new power but it does recognize the general power to do
that which is necessary "to give effect to any order under this Code, B
or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice." But then, the statute does not say that the
inherent power recognized is only such as has been exercised in the
past either. What it says is that the High Courts always had such
inherent power and that this power has not been taken away. Whenever
in a criminal matter a question arises for consideration whether in C
particular circumstances the High Court has power to make a
particular kind of order in the absence of express provision in the
Code or other statute the test to be applied would be whether it is
necessary to do so to give effect to an order under the Code or to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice." (Emphasis added) D
From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that if there is an express
provision governing the particular subject matter then there is no scope for
invoking or exercising the inherent powers of the 'court because Court is
required to apply, in the manner and mode prescribed, the provisions of the E
statute which are made to govern the particular subject-matter. But the
Highest Court in the State could exercise inherent powers for doing justice
according to law where no express power is available to do a particular thing
. and express power do not negative the existence of such power. It is true that
under the Criminal Procedure Code, specific provisions for awarding costs
are only those as stated above. At the same time, there is no specific bar that F
in no other case, costs could be awarded. Further, in non- cognizable cases,
Section 359 empowers the Courts including Appellate Court or High Court
or Court of Sessions while exercising its powers of revision to order the
convicted accused to pay to the complainant, in whole or in part, the cost
incurred by him in the prosecution including the expenses incurred in respect G

- of process fees, witnesses and pleaders" fees which the Court may consider
reasonable. Hence, it may be inferred that in a cognizable case and in appeal
or revision arising therefrom, the High Court cannot exercise inherent power
for awarding costs de hors the said provisions. But such inference is not
possible in cases where Court is exercising powers under Section 482. It is
to be stated that in cognizable cases also under Section 357 while awarding H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A compensation out of the fine imposed on the accused, inter alia, the Court
is required to take into consideration expenses properly incurred in the
prosecution. Hence, exercise of such power would, on the contrary, be in
conformity· and not in conflict with the powers conferred under Sections
148(3), 342 and 357 or 359 of the Cr.P.C. In appropriate cases, where it is
necessary to pass such order, Court may award costs for the purposes, namely,
B (i) to give effect to any order p~ssed under the Court (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court and (iii) to secure the ends of justice as there
is no (i) negative provision for exercise of"such power" and (ii) inconsistency
with the other provisions. Further, awarding of costs, as stated above, can
be for two purposes, one for meeting the Jiti&ation expenses and, secondly,
C for preventing the abuse of the process of Court or to do justice in a matter
and in such circurristance.s, costs can be exemplary. It is true t~it this
jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly for the aforesaid purposes in most
appropriate cases and is not limitless but is to be exercised judiciously.

Now, we would ref~r to the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel
D for the appellants to contend that costs cannot be awarded while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance is
placed on the decision of Lasu Janu Pawar and Ors. v. Emperor, (1948) AIR
Bombay 169, wherein the Court has held that - where a complaint and the
proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed by the High Court as being both
E frivolous and vexatious, it has no power to award costs against the
complainant. For that purpose, Court referred to sections under the Code
which specifically confer jurisdiction/power in certain types of cases, to
award costs or compensation and held that it negatives the existence of any
general power or jurisdiction so to do in other cases unless such general
power or jurisdiction is to result from Section 56l(A) of the Code. The Court
F thereafter held that all that section do is to preserve the inherent powers of
the High Court without conferring any additional power and relied upon the
decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in A. T. Sankara
Linga Mudaliar v. Narayana Muda/iar and Ors., (1922) AIR Madras 502 by
holding that reasoning in the said case was sound. Before parting with the
G judgment the Court observed that it was for the legislature to consider that
in a criminal complaint launched by private prosecutors wider powers with
regard to awarding costs should be conferred on the High Court in cases
where a complaint was frivolous or vexatious or was in abuse of the process
of the Court. The Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case
of A. T. Sankara Linga Mudaliar (supra) dealt with the question whether
H there was power in the High Court to grant costs on a revision petition
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (SHAH, J.] 605
brought not by the Crown but by a private prosecutor against an acquittal, A
,- which petition has failed. Delivering the judgment Schwabe CJ observed that
if there is power, it is a case in which he would gladly grant costs. Court
thereafter observed that as the Court was exercising revisional power in a
criminal case and the Code does provide in several instances for payment of
costs and as there is no provision for granting costs in such case maxim
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius" [Expression of one thing is the exclusion B
of another] applies and held that costs cannot be awarded by exercising
inherent powers. Before holding that Court has no jurisdiction to grant costs,
the Court observed as under:

"A Court may have inherent power to grant costs. That is clear from
a judgment in the House of Lords in Guardians of West Ham Union
c
· v. Churchwardens, etc. ofSt. Mathew, Bethral Green (1896) App. Cas.
477) where the House of Lords held that they had inherent power to
grant costs, and in In re Bombay Civil Fund Act, 1882: Pringle v.
Secretary of State for India (5) where Cotton and Bower, L.JJ state
clearly their view that they have an inherent power to grant costs in D
the matter which came before them, although there was no statutory
provision enabling them to grant costs. But, in my view, the exercise
of that inherent power must be always restricted and limited to this
that if the power of granting costs by the Court in that kind of
proceedings is provided for in some way by statute, the Court cannot,
by invoking its inherent powers, extend the powers which had been E
granted to it by the statute."

In concurring judgment, Courts trotter J, observed that Courts of Equity
in England always asserted their possession of such jurisdiction and constantly
used it as is pointed out in various judgments that it can award costs. The
learned Judge also referred to the decision of House of Lords in Guardians
F
of Westham Union (supra) and observed that in the said case, it was
undoubtedly laid down that as and by virtue of its position as the highest
Court in the land and not by any devolution of powers from the Courts of
Equity it held jurisdiction to deal with the costs. However, the learned Judge
thereafter observed: G

- "But I think that the main reason why it is not possible for this Court
to adopt that line of reasoning and take upon itself the awarding of
costs in criminal cases is this: Revision is not an inherent power of
this or any other Court: the whole machinery of revision is a creature
of statute and has to be found within the four walls of the Code of H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 3 S.C.R.

A Criminal Procedure and, so far as criminal c~ses are concerned, I do
-,
not see how we can posit an inherent power in ourselves to supplement
that.purely statutory machinery by assuming to ourselves the inherent
power of supplementing it by the awarding of costs."

The aforesaid decision was again followed by the full bench of the
B Madras High Court in P. Veerappa v. Avudayammal and Anr., AIR (1925)
Madras 43 8, wherein the Court observed that High Court has no power to
invoke its inherent powers on the hearing of a criminal revision against an
order passed under Sections 145 and 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

c Court From the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, it is apparent that the
recorded three reasons for not awarding the costs. Firstly, the Court
was exercising revisionary jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Secondly, the Court cannot extend the jurisdiction by invoking its inherent
powers. Thirdly, the Court relied upon the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio
alterius" and held that as there are specific provisions empowering the Court
D to grant costs, it excludes any other power of granting costs. In our view,
the aforesaid reasons would not stand scrutiny; firstly, because there is negative
provision that except the cases for which the costs could be awarded under
different sections of the Code, High Court. shall not exercise its inherent
jurisdiction of granting costs. In cases where for preventing abuse of the
process of law or for securing justice, Court may find that order for ·costs
E
including exemplary costs is required to be passed, then the phrase "such
order" would include the same and there is no reason to restrict the ambit
of the phrase "such power". Secondly, with regard to the inherent jurisdiction
in the case of Dr. Raghuvir Saran (supra) learned judges observed that "the
Statute does not say that inherent power recognized is only such as has been
F exercised in the past either." It is further observed that High Courts have
inherent power to secure the ends of justice which are in the nature of
extraordinary powers where no express power is available to the High Court
to do a particular thing and when its express power do not negative the
existence of such inherent power. This would be further clear from the
English decisions referred to by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court.
G
In re Bombay Civil Fund Act, 1882: Pringle v. Secretary of State for India,
(1889) Chancery Division 288 the Court of Appeals held that even though
there is no provision in the Act to give costs of a successful claim, the Court -
had inherent jurisdiction to order him to pay the costs of wrongly putting the
court in motion, and there was nothing In the Act to show that the Legislature
H intended the Court not to have such jurisdiction. In case of a fruitless and
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHAH, J.] 607
unjustifiable application made to the Court, the Court should have its ordinary A
power of saying that such an application should be dismissed with costs.

In the case of the Guardians of West Ham Union v. The Church
Wardens and Overseas and Guardians of the Poor of the Parish of St.
Mathew, Bethnal Green (1896) Law reports 477 (489), the House of Lords held
as under: B
I

"The truth is, as it seems to me, that the House of Lords, as the
highest Court of appeal,. has and necessarily must have an inherent
jurisdiction as regards costs. That this inherent jurisdiction is the
so.le authority for the action of the House of Lords in dealing with
the costs of appeals is, I think, shown very plainly by the latest C
alteration which this House has made in its practice with regard to
that matter. For a very Jong period it was the practice of the House
of Lords never to give costs "against a party coming to defend and
sustain a decree in his favour" : Mackersy V. Ramsays. (1) That was
said to be an inflexible rule. But that rule was altered in 1877, after D
the Judicature Act was passed. And it was altered by the House of
Lords of its own motion, without any statutory authority, simply on
the principle which then commended itself to this House, that a
successful appellant was entitled to indemnity: Bowes V. Shand (2),
per Lord Cairns L.C. and Lord Blackburn." There is no reason not
to follow the aforesaid principle." E
Thirdly, the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" has its limited
operation. Its operation is to be restricted with regard to the sections which
empower the Court to grant costs in certain cases by holding that for the
cases mentioned in those sections, Court cannot exercise its inherent
jurisdiction of granting costs or pass an order of granting costs in a method F
and mode different from what is provided by the said sections. Application
of this maxim would lead to incon~istency and injustice because in cases
where Court finds that a petition under Section 482 is an abuse of the process
of law and an unjustifiable petition for some ulterior motive including dragging
of the proceedings of Court, it can pass any other order, but not the order G
for costs. ·

Further, for the rule of interpretation on the basis of the maxim "expressio
unius est exclusio alterius", it has been considered in the decision rendered
by the Queen's Bench in the case of Dean v. Wiesengrund, (1955) 2 QBD 120.
The Court considered the said maxim and held that after all it is more than H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 3 S.C.R.

A an aid to construction and has little, if any, weight where it is possible, to
account for the "inclusio unius" on grounds other than intention to effect the
"exclusio alterius'.'. Thereafter, the Court referred to the following passage
from the case of Co/quhoon v. Brooks, (1887) 19 QBD 400 at 406 wherein the
· Court called for its approval-"the maxim" 'expressio unius est exclusio
B aiterius' has beeri pressed upon us. I agree with what is said in the ~ourt
bel<?w by Wills J. about this maxim. It is often a valuable servant, but a
dangerous master to follow in the construction of statutes of documents. Th~
. exclusio is often the result of inadvertence or accident, and the maxim ought
not to be applied, when its application having regard to the subject matter
to which it is to be applied, leads to inconsistency or injustice. In my opiilion,
C the application of th~ maxim here would lead to inconsistency and injustice,
and would make Section 14(.l) of the Act of 1920 uncertain and capricious in
its operation."

The aforesaid maxim was referred to by this Court in the case of Asstt.
Collector, Central Excise v. National Tobacco Co., [1972] 2 SCC 560, the
D Court in that case considered the question whether there was or was not an
implied power to hold an inquiry in the circumstances of the case in view
of the provisions of the Section 4 of the Central Excise Act read with Rule
IO(A) of the Central Excise Rules and referred to the aforesaid passage "the
maxim" is often a valuable servant, but a dangerous master ... ' and held that
E the rule is subservient to the basic principle that Courts must endeavour to
ascertain the legislative intent and purpose, and then adopt a rule of
construction which effectuates rather than one that may defeat these. Moreover,
the rule of prohibition by necessary implication could be applied only where
a spec"ified procedure is laid down for the performance of a duty. In the case
of Parbhani Transport Co-op·Society Ltd. v. R.T.A. Aurangabad, [1960] 3
F SCR 177, this Court observed that maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"
is a maxim for ascertaining the intention of the legislature and where the
statutory language is plain l!.nd the 01eaning clear, there is no scope for
applying. Further, in Harish Chander Vajpai v. Tri/oki Singh, [1957] SCR 371,
389, the Court referred to the following passage from the Maxwell on
G Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, pages 316-317: -

"Provisions sometimes found in statutes, enacting imperfectly or for
particular cases only that which was already and more widely the law,
have occasionally furnished ground for the contention that an intention
to alter the general law was to be ,inferred from the partial or limited
H enactment, resting on the maxim expressio unius, exclusio alterius. But
MARY ANGEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHAH, J.] 609
. that _maxim is inapplicable in such cases. The only inference which a A
. court can draw from such superfluous provisions (whkh, generally
.,_ flnd a place in Acts to meet unfounded objections and idle doubts),
is that.the Legislature was either ignorant or unmindful of the real
state of the law, or that it acted under the influence of excessive
caution."
B
"Lastly, we wou.Jd state that in the case of Pampathy v. State of Mysore
·(supra),' the Court has specifically observed that no legislative enactment
aealing with the procedure cah provide for all cases and that Court should
have inherent powers apart from th~ express provisions of law which are
necessary for the proper discharge of duties. In our view, application of the C
aforesaid maxim for interpreting Section 482 would have only limited

,
operation as stated above .
.

In .the result, we hold that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under
. Section 482, Court has power to pass 'such orders' (not inconsistent with
any provision ofthe'Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, D
(i) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
As stated abov~, this extraordinary power is to be used in extraordinary
circumstances and in a judicious manner. Costs may be to meet the litigation
expenses or can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes.
E
. In view of the aforesa~d ·findings, this appeal is dismissed.

·RA. Appeal dismissed.

F