14. I am now called upon to call for the records of the subordinate court to examine the legality of the process. Warrants of search and seizure are issued by the subordinate court pursuant to specific provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. A party who is dissatisfied by the issue of warrants has a right to apply to set it aside or in any case apply for revision of the Court orders to the High Court under Part XI of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court power of revision under the Code is merely a statutory codification of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 165(6) and (7) and unless there is a good reason to bypass the subordinate court or the High Court procedure established by law, the Court should resist such a temptation. I am aware that in exercising jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights and freedoms, the High Court is unshackled by statutory and common law procedures and reliefs. But is must not be lost to the parties that fundamental rights and freedoms are protected and realised through ordinary procedures enacted by statute. 15. As I stated, at least concerning the frequencies subject of the enforcement action, there is no nexus between this case and Petition No. 346 of 2012 apart from the fact that my judgment enunciated broad principles that would apply when CCK is exercising its statutory authority to regulate the airwaves. The Chief Magistrates Court has now acted on what appears on its face a regular process and the petitioner has right to pursue the reliefs I have alluded to independently of this cause. 16. Though I firmly believe that I have jurisdiction to call for the records of the subordinate court, I am not persuaded that these are proper proceedings to call for those records at this stage particularly where I am clear that Petition No. 346 of 2012 dealt PETITION NO. 59 OF 2013 RULING No. 2 03.02.2013 Page 6