Inherent powers cannot bypass the statutory bar on second revision petitions absent manifest gross injustice.

On February 20, 2022, police intercepted a car carrying three boxes of illicit liquor containing ethyl alcohol

While the driver fled, the investigating officer (IO) determined through transport records that the petitioner, Shameem Ahmad, was the registered owner of the vehicle

The petitioner claimed he had sold the vehicle to one "Pawan," who subsequently sold it to "Shaurabh," but that the registration transfer was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic

However, the IO discovered that the address provided by the petitioner for the purported buyer, Shaurabh, was false and had been occupied by a different individual for 30 years

Consequently, the Trial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner under Section 33/52 of the Delhi Excise Act on May 15, 2025

The petitioner’s revision petition against the framing of charges was dismissed by the Court of Sessions on January 29, 2026

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court to assail these orders

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable in light of the statutory bar on second revision petitions under Section 438(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

2. Whether the petitioner can be held liable for charges under Section 33/52 of the Delhi Excise Act based on his status as the registered owner of the vehicle used to transport illicit liquor

The court primarily applied Section 438(3) of the BNSS (the successor to Section 397(3) of the CrPC), which categorically prohibits a party from filing a second revision petition

The court emphasized the legal principle that inherent powers cannot be invoked to bypass an explicit statutory prohibition unless a case of "gross injustice" is established

The court referred to the parameters for framing charges, noting that "grave suspicion" based on material on record is sufficient to proceed to trial

The court also noted the procedural requirements for vehicle owners under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act

The court first addressed maintainability, ruling that the petitioner was attempting a "backdoor entry" into a second revision, which is explicitly barred by Section 438(3) BNSS to prevent the protraction of trials

Upon reviewing the merits to check for "gross injustice," the court found the petitioner's defense—that the car had been sold—unconvincing at this stage

The investigation revealed that the petitioner provided a false address for the alleged buyer, and no evidence supported the claim that the petitioner was not the owner at the time of the offense

The court reasoned that registered ownership, coupled with the inability of the IO to locate the purported buyer, created a "grave suspicion" that the petitioner was involved in the transportation of illicit liquor

The court concluded that factual disputes regarding the sale of the vehicle are matters for adjudication during the trial, not during a challenge to the framing of charges

The High Court upheld the orders of the lower courts holding the petitioner liable to be charged under Section 33/52 of the Delhi Excise Act

The court imposed costs of Rs. 15,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC)

The Trial Court was directed to proceed independently based on the evidence adduced during the trial