Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.
(1) The petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 3rd of June 1985 by which he was convicted u/s 27(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and was sentenced to undergo six months'' simple imprisonment and to payment of fine of Rs. 300.00 , in default of payment of which he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. This conviction and sentence was recorded on the plea of guilty of the petitioner. Since appeal in such a case u/s 375 Cr. P.C. would lie only in respect of the extent and legality of the sentence, it seems the petitioner went in revision to the Sessions court The revision petition was dismissed as without any merit and the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed.
(2) The petitioner has now come up before this court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order resulting in his conviction and sentence. The contention mainly is that the plea of guilty recorded by the court below is not voluntary and that he was not forwarded by the court of the consequences of the plea of guilty. The remedy provided to the petitioner in law has been exhausted by him and it appears from the record of the case that the contention in respect of the voluntary na,lur of the contention was not raised before the revisional court and it came to the mind of the petitioner late in the day as it has for the first time been raised before this court. Raising a contention of the nature at such a late stage is of avail to the petitioner and it is difficult to believe in it now.
(3) It is to be recalled that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is the minimum as provided by law. As already stated, the petitioner has availed of his remedy provided in law and in the garb of a petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C it is not proper to allow him to seek interference by this court. Surely, section 482 Cr. P.C. does not confer a right upon the petitioner It only confers a power upon this court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction where it finds a gross abuse of the process of the court of palpable miscarriage of justice. The remedy, Therefore, chosen by the petitioner is misconceived. Mr. P.N. Kohli urged that the petitioner is not entitled to come to this court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. as he has already exhausted his revisional remedy. I fully agree with Mr. Kohli. Normally, such petitions u/s 482 Cr. P.C. shall not be entertained but that does not mean that this court has no power to interfere u/s 482 if it is necessary to interfere in the interest of justice. This is an extra-ordinary jurisdiction and will be available for exercise in extraordinary circumstances depending upon the facts of each case, as the exercise of the power will only be directed towards achieving of the laudable objective of securing the ends of justice and preventing gross abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the conviction and sentence has been recorded on the plea of guilty of the petitioner and is the minimum one. The sentence has secured the ends of justice and has prevented gross abuse of the process of the court. There is no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed as being without any merit. The necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the petitioner undergoes the sentence awarded to him. The petition is disposed of.
