http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: HAZARI LAL GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/12/1971

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. PALEKAR, D.G.

CITATION:  1972 AIR  484            1972 SCR  (2) 666  1972 SCC  (1) 452  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1992 SC 604  (94)

ACT: Code  of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898), ss. 496,  497,  498 and 561A--Powers of High Court under.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant was living and doing business in  the  United Kingdom.  He was arrested for offences under ss. 406 and 420 I.P.C.,  when he came to India. on information given by  the complainants.   Pending investigation, he applied  for  bail and the court ordered that he may be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and sureties.  He then applied  to the  High Court for modification of the  order,  undertaking not  to leave India and to surrender his passport,  and  the High  Court reduced the amount of the personal bonds and  of the  sureties.  Thereafter, the complainants applied to  the High  Court under Ss. 498 and 561A, Cr.  P.C., praying  that the  appellant should be directed to surrender his  passport before  enlarging  him  on bail and the  High  Court  passed orders accordingly.  The appellant surrendered his  passport and was released on bail.  He then applied under S. 561A  to the High Court praying : (1) that the proceedings based upon the  First Information Report lodged by the complainants  be quashed, (2) that the order of the High Court directing  the appellant  to  surrender the passport be  modified  and  the appellant’s   passport  be  released,  and  (3)   that   the restrictions  imposed  on  him not to  leave  India  may  be cancelled.  The High Court dismissed the application. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : (1) In exercising the inherent jurisdiction under  s. 561A,  the High Court can quash proceedings if there  is  no legal   evidence  or   there  is  any  impediment   to   the institution  or  continuance of proceedings;  but  the  High Court may not ordinarily inquire  as to whether the evidence is  reliable  or not.  Where again, investigation  into  the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under  the provisions of the Code the High Court should  not interfere with such investigation, because, it would then be impeding  investigation  and the jurisdiction  of  statutory authorities   exercising  power  in  accordance   with   the provisions of the Code. [670 C-E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

R.   P.  Kapur  v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 S.C.R.  388  and State  of  West Bengal V.  S. N. Basak [1963] 2  S.C.R.  53, referred to. (2)  Sections   496,  497  and  498,  Cr.   P.C.,  are   not exhaustive  of the powers of the court it; regard  to  terms and conditions of bail particularly when the High Court  was dealing  with the cases of this type under S. 561A, and  the apprehension  of  the appellant jumping bail  could  not  be brushed aside. [669 H; 670 A] (3)  When,  the  High  Court  passed  orders  reducing   the sureties  and  thereafter  passed  an  order  directing  the appellant  to  surrender  his  passport  and  the  appellant complied  with  the  orders and was released  on  bail.  the appellant  could  not  again  come  up  under  s.  561A  for modifying and, revising the orders passed by the High Court. [669 F-G] 667

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.  110 to 113 of 1971. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated March 22, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 2675 to 2678 of 1970. G.   N. Dikshit and S. K. Bisaria, for the appellant (in all the appeals). R.   Bana, for respondent No. 1 (in all the appeals). O.   P. Rana, for respondent No. 2 (in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. These four appeals are by special leave against  the order  dated 22 March, 1971 of the High Court  at  Allahabad dismissing  the applications of the appellant under  section 561-A  of  the  Criminal Procedure  Code  for  quashing  the proceedings  based  upon  first  information  report  lodged against the appellant by the four respondents. The  appellant  has been living and doing  business  in  the United Kingdom since the year 1963.  The appellant is one of the Directors of M/s H. Gupta (London) Limited and  Oriental Wool  Crafts Limited carrying on business in  England.   The company is dealing in the business of carpets imported  from India. Sometime  in  the month of June, 1970 four  complaints  were lodged   against  the  appellant.   The   complainants   are residents  of  Bhadohi  in the District  of  Varanasi.   The complainants are manufacturers of carpets.  The complainants came  in contact with the appellant in the year  1962.   The complainants and the appellant had dealings and transactions in carpets.  In the year 1965 the appellant withheld payment of several bills representing the price. of carpets sent  by the  complainants  to the appellant.  In the year  1965  the appellant came to India.  The, complainants demanded  money. The  appellant  said that he would send  them  payment  from London.   The complainants did not receive any money.   When the  appellant came to India in 1970 the  complainants  were kept in the dark about his visit to India.  Eventually,  the complainants came to know about it.  The complainants on  or about 4 July, 1970 lodged complaints against the appellant. The  appellant  was thereafter arrested for  offences  under sections  406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the  first information report of the complainants. The  Additional District Magistrate, Gyanpur  refused  bail. On  13 July, 1970 the appellant applied for bail before  the Sessions  Judge, Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh.   The  appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

was to 668 be  enlarged on bail and the sureties were to be two of  Rs. 40,000 each in one case, two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each  in the second’ case and two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each in  the third case and two sureties of Rs. 15,000 each in the fourth case and in each case there was to be a personal bond of the like  amount.   The appellant was also asked  not  to  leave India  without the permission of the court.   The  appellant was   unable  to  furnish  the  sureties.    The   appellant thereafter  applied  to  the High  Court  at  Allahabad  for modification of the order in respect of sureties.  The  High Court  on 21 July, 1970 was pleased to modify the  order  of the  Sessions Judge by reducing the amount of surety to  Rs. 10,000/- in each case and a personal bond of the like amount in each case. The complainants on coming to know of the order of the  High Court  in the month of July, 1970 made an application  under section  498  read  with  section  561-A  of  the   Criminal Procedure  Code that the Additional District  Magistrate  at Varanasi  should  be directed to seize the passport  of  the appellant  before enlarging him on bail on the  ground  that there was an apprehension that the appellant would jump  his bail.  The High Court at Allahabad on 21 August, 1970 passed orders   directing  the  Additional   District   Magistrate, Varanasi  that there would be no harm if the  appellant  was further ordered to surrender his passport to the  Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Varanasi.  The appellant was thereafter  released  on bail on 21  September,  1970  after furnishing  the surety to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-  in  each case  and after surrendering his passport to the  Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Varanasi. The appellant on being released on bail moved an application under  section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code  in  the High Court at Allahabad and prayed for three orders.   These were  :  first,  that  the  proceedings  based  upon   first information  report lodged by the complainants  be  quashed; secondly,  that  the order of the High  Court  of  Allahabad dated  21 August, 1970 directing the appellant to  surrender the  passport  be modified and the appellant’s  passport  be released; and thirdly, that the restrictions imposed by  the District  Magistrate restricting the appellant not to  leave India,  be  cancelled.  The High Court at  Allahabad  on  23 March, 1971 dismissed the application of the appellant.  The present  appeals  are against that order of the  High  Court dated  23 March. 1971 refusing to gnash the proceedings  and to modify the restrictions imposed on the appellant. Counsel   on   behalf  of  the   appellant’   raised   four’ contentions.  First, that the proceedings should be  quashed because  there was no certificate by the  High  Commissioner for India in the United 669 Kingdom  under  section 188 of the Criminal  Procedure  Code that the charges against the appellant ought to be  enquired into  in  India.   Secondly, there was no  sanction  of  the Director of Foreign Exchange for prosecution.  Thirdly,  the report  under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code  of the  Investigation Officer was not placed.  Fourthly,  there was no case against the appellant. The  case  against  the  appellant  is  in  the  course   of investigation.   Counsel  on behalf of the  State  submitted that  investigation  was practically complete and  the  case would  commence  soon.  It is not necessary to  express  any opinion  on,  the  question as  to  whether  certificate  or sanction  is necessary.  If certificate or sanction will  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

necessary and if there will be no certificate or sanction it will be open to the appellant to canvass that ground at  the appropriate stage of trial.  The report which the  appellant characterizes  as  one  under section 169  of  the  Criminal Procedure  Code does not find any mention in  the  grounds. The  affidavit  filed  by the  Supervising  Officer  of  the investigation is that detailed investigation was started and as yet there is no report under section 169 of the  Criminal Procedure Code.  The appellant is not entitled to papers  of the  Investigation  Officer.  It is also  not  desirable  to express  any  opinion on the inherits of the  case  at  this stage. The  contention of the appellant in the forefront  was  that the passport of the appellant should be returned so that the appellant  could  return  to  England.   On  behalf  of  the appellant  an  affidavit  was  affirmed  by  Virendra  Kumar Srivastava in the High Court at Allahabad in support of  the application for modification of the order for sureties  that the  appellant was prepared to give an undertaking  that  he would  not leave India before the case was  finally  decided and lie was further prepared to surrender his passport after release on bail.  When the High Court at Allahabad passed an order on 21 July, 1970 reducing the sureties and  thereafter on  21 August, 1970 passed an order directing the  appellant to  surrender his passport and the appellant  complied  with the orders and was released on bail, the appellant could not again come up under section 561-A of the Criminal  Procedure Code  before the High Court at Allahabad for  modifying  and revising the orders passed by the High Court. On  behalf of the appellant it was said that  sections  496, 497  and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code in  relation  to bail  did  not confer any power on the court  when  granting bail  to restrict the departure of the appellant from  India by  requiring  the  appellant  to  surrender  the  passport. Sections 496, 497 and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not exhaustive of powers of the court in regard to terms and conditions of bail particularly when 12-L 643 Supp./72 670 the High Court under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with cases of this type.  The apprehension of the appellant  jumping bail could not be brushed aside.  If  the appellant wanted to retain the passport the court might  not have  granted the appellant any bail.  Again, the  reduction of  the surety was made in order to enable the appellant  to be  enlarged on bail.  The reduction of surety was  also  on the consideration that the appellant would not leave India. The inherent power of the High Court under section 561-A  of the  Criminal  Procedure Code has been  considered  by  this Court in R. P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab (1) and State of West Bengal v. S. N.  Basak. (2) In exercising  jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code the  High Court can quash proceedings if them is no legal evidence  or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of  proceedings  but  the High  Court  does  not  ordinarily enquire  as  to whether the evidence is ’reliable  or  not’. Where  again,  investigation into the  circumstances  of  an alleged  rocognisable  offence  is  carried  on  under   the provisions  of  the Criminal Procedure Code the  High  Court does not interfere with such investigation because it  would then be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities  to  exercise  power  in  accordance  with   the provisions  of the Criminal Procedure Code.  The High  Court was  correct  in dismissing the applications  under  section 561-A  of  the  Criminal Procedure Code.   The  appeals  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

therefore dismissed. Counsel on behalf of the State stated that the cases against the  appellant would commence soon.  The State  should  keep that  in view particularly because long time has been  taken for investigation. V.P.S.                         Appeals dismissed. (1)  [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388, (2)  [1963] 2 S.C.R. 52, 671